Case Number: BC610873 Hearing Date: July 21, 2016 Dept: 37

CASE NAME: Peterson v. Keyes European, LLC

CASE NO.: BC610873

HEARING DATE: 7/21/16

DEPARTMENT: 37

CALENDAR NO.: 10

TRIAL DATE: None

NOTICE: OK

SUBJECT: Motion for Return of Property

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jillian Peterson

OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant Keyes European, LLC, dba Keyes European

COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING

The motion is denied. Counsel for Defendant to give notice.

DISCUSSION

This action concerns a dispute between Plaintiff Jillian Peterson and Defendant Keyes European, LLC, a Mercedes-Benz dealership. As set forth in the complaint, the factual background is as follows. Plaintiff alleges that her vehicle was stolen and, after it was recovered, was subsequently sent to Defendant to be inspected and serviced. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misused the insurance proceeds received from Plaintiff’s insurance company, and that Defendant filed a small claims action alleging that Plaintiff herself had stolen the vehicle from Defendant’s service department. Plaintiff alleges that the allegations in the small claims action constitute defamation, as the allegations are a matter of public record, available for anyone to read. In addition, she alleges that Defendant has tried to “oversell” her—for example, by repairing the vehicle’s brakes without permission—and has failed to repair the vehicle.

On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed this motion seeking to compel Defendant to return Plaintiff’s car keys. While the parties dispute the events giving rise to this lawsuit and the present motion, it appears that Defendant is in possession of one set of Plaintiff’s car keys. According to Defendant, it came into possession of the keys when Plaintiff dropped the vehicle off for repairs on June 30, 2015, determined that she did not want to pay for the repairs, returned to the dealership after hours, and using her other set of keys took the car. Defendant asserts that it remains willing to return the keys once Plaintiff pays $286 for the repair of her brakes Plaintiff, however, maintains that the reason for the June 30, 2015 visit was a nonfunctioning light, which remains nonfunctioning, that she did not need a brake job, that she has always paid her repair bills, and that Defendant lost the small claims action for which it did not appear.

Absent from the moving papers is legal authority for the court to grant the requested relief. This appears to be, at bottom, an action for defamation. It is therefore unclear on what legal basis Plaintiff seeks to have the court compel Defendant to return certain property. Plaintiff has not cited in her complaint in this action or this motion legal

authority supporting such a claim or the relief being sought in the motion. Accordingly,
the motion is denied.1

——————————————————
1 The court also notes it does not appear Plaintiff properly reserved the hearing date for this motion. Plaintiff appears to state that the court reservation system provided a first available hearing date on December 1, 2016, and Plaintiff regarded this motion as an emergency. She therefore requests that the court hear the motion. Plaintiff is advised that she must obtain a date for hearings through the reservation system or specifically seek the court’s permission to specially set a motion.