Real party in interest brought an action against petitioner corporation alleging that the corporation quit making certain required payments. After obtaining a writ of attachment, real party in interest requested a turnover order. Respondent, the Superior Court of Orange County (California), issued the order and required the corporation to deliver certain funds to the county sheriff. The corporation sought a writ of mandate challenging the order.

Nakase Law Firm are labor attorneys San Diego


The trial court issued a turnover order requiring the corporation to turn over to the sheriff funds in a Florida deposit account and all payments the corporation received from sister companies headquartered in New Jersey. The court granted the corporation’s petition for a writ of mandate, stating that the Attachment Law, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 481.010 et seq., did not authorize the order. The parties were competing claimants to the right to be paid the money on deposit in the Florida bank and owed by the sister entities. The location of the Florida bank and the sister entities was considered the location of the intangible property that real party in interest sought to reach. Accordingly, a writ of attachment to reach the intangible property would need to be issued to levying officers in Florida and New Jersey. However, a California court lacked jurisdiction to command an officer in Florida or New Jersey to levy a California writ of attachment on a New Jersey company or a Florida bank. Without a writ of attachment being issued to a levying officer who can levy the writ, the trial court lacked authority under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 482.080 to issue a turnover order.


The court granted the petition and issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order. The writ of mandate also directed the trial court to issue a new order returning to the corporation any funds held by the sheriff pursuant to the vacated order.