A court can grant a prejudgment remedy application if, taking into account defenses, countervailing claims, set offs, exemptions and insurance, probable cause exists that judgment will be issued to the applicant. The plaintiff, Maegan Parisi, sued the defendant, Alissa Montz, alleging intentional assault at a restaurant. The plaintiff also alleged that she suffered emotional distress and requested compensation for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff requested a prejudgment remedy and provided evidence that she injured her head, chest, neck and side. Allegedly, the plaintiff's medical expenses were $2,072. The plaintiff also alleged that she lost wages of $300. "The purpose of the prejudgment remedy of attachment is security for the satisfaction of the plaintiff's judgment, should he obtain one," pursuant to Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems LLC v. Dunican, a 2008 decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court. "The plaintiff does not have to establish that he will prevail, only that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of the claim," pursuant to Canty v. Otto, a 2012 decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. The court found that probable cause exists that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits in the amount of $20,000, and it granted a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $20,000.