Case Number: 19GDCV01330 Hearing Date: February 14, 2020 Dept: E

WRIT OF POSSESSION (2)

[CCP § 512.010 et. seq]

Date: 2/14/20

Case: Financial Services Vehicle Trust v. Shahbazyan et al. (19GDCV01330)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Financial Services Vehicle Trusts’s UNOPPOSED Application for writ of possession is GRANTED as to defendant Hovahannes Shahbazyan. The Court finds that plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claim to possession of the property. No bond is required for issuance of the writ inasmuch as the amount owed exceeds the market value of the vehicle (i.e., market value $40,800 and amount owed $108,553.81). (See CCP §515.010.)

Plaintiff’s application for writ of possession is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to defendant H&S Collision and Auto Repair, Inc. (“H&S”). A writ of possession shall issue only if the plaintiff’s claim is probably valid and the other requirements for issuing the writ are established. (CCP § 512.040(b).) Due to the extraordinary nature of pretrial statutory writ remedies, their requirements are generally subject to strict construction. (See Pacific Design Decision Sciences Corp. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1106.) Here, it may be true that H&S did not timely apply for authorization to conduct a lien sale, as required by Civil Code § 3068(b)(1)(A), thereby extinguishing H&S purported lien. However, the only evidence that H&S did not so apply is plaintiff’s counsel’s averment that the lien sale unit of the California Department of Motor Vehicles told him that H&S’s application for a lien sale was not finalized. (See Domin Decl. ¶ 7.) That allegation is inadmissible hearsay, and that factual contention is not otherwise supported by competent evidence, including any documentary evidence. Because the Court is unable to determine whether plaintiff has a superior claim to possession as to H&S’s alleged repair and storage lien against the vehicle, the Court cannot grant the requested relief as to H&S. Because the Court finds plaintiff’s initial showing to be insufficient, the Court has not considered defendant H&S’s untimely opposition, filed only one day before the hearing.

In light of the foregoing, plaintiff should be prepared to address at the hearing on the applications for writ of possession whether the Court should sign the Order for Writ of Possession as to Hovhannes Shahbazyan as proposed by plaintiff, which includes a provision order that the subject vehicle may be found at and taken from 6740 Vineland Avenue, Suite D, North Hollywood, CA 91606, which is H&S’s business address according to the declaration of Roberta Hughes. (See Hughes Decl. ¶ 22.)