CIV538687 RAYMOND R. HRUBY VS. GARY PODESTA, ET AL.

KAREN HRUBY GARY PODESTA
BRADLEY P. KNYPSTRA RAMSEY KAWAR

RAYMOND R. HRUBY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Plaintiff Karen Hruby (“Plaintiff”) for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, and Motion for Summary Adjudication to the First Cause of Action in Defendant Gary Podesta’s (“Defendant”) Cross-Complaint, is ruled on as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, to the Complaint is DENIED. Plaintiff fails to meet her initial burden of establishing each element of her causes of action. (See C.C.P. § 437c(p)(1).) Plaintiff not only seeks recovery of the possession of the vehicle, but also seeks damages in connection with all three causes of action alleged. (See Third Amended Complaint, pp. 78, Prayer for First, Second and Third Causes of Action.) Plaintiff however, fails to present any evidence to support her damages.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication to the First Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief in Defendant’s Cross-Complaint is DENIED. Defendant’s first cause of action for declaratory relief seeks an adjudication that Defendant is the true and correct owner of the vehicle and is entitled to register the vehicle and obtain documentation of title and registration from the California DMV.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is not entitled to declaratory relief because his claim to title is void because the vehicle was stolen. (See Suburban Motors, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1361 [any title derived from sale by a thief is void, not voidable, even if purchased in good faith].) Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to meet her initial burden that she is the owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle was stolen. (See Plaintiff’s Decl. (except as to portions that Defendant’s objections have been sustained), and Exh.15; see also Yori Decl. (except as to portions that Defendant’s objections have been sustained), and Exhs. 17 and 18.)

In opposition though, Defendant raises a triable issue of material fact as to his ownership of the vehicle. Specifically, Defendant’s evidence raises a triable issue of material fact in that his title is not void because the prior owner in Defendant’s chain of title, John Sanders, purchased it from the insurance company after Plaintiff and her husband reported it stolen and it was recovered by the police and impounded. (See Kawar Decl., Exh. A, John Sanders Depo. Transcript; see also Knypstra Dec., Exh. 1, John Sanders Depo. Transcript; see also Kawar Decl., Exh. B.) The vehicle was then sold by John Sanders to Royal Krieger. (See Kawar Decl., Exh. A, Sanders Depo. Transcript; see also Knypstra Dec., Exh. 1, Sanders Depo. Transcript.) Krieger testified that he then sold the vehicle to Defendant for $32,500. (See Kawar Decl., Exh. C, p. 107.)

(3) Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

(4) Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Exhibits 1-5, 14-17, 18, and 19. Defendant’s Request as to Exhibits 6, 7-12 and 13 are DENIED.

(5) Defendant’s Evidentiary Objections are ruled on as follows:

(a) Objections to Yori Declaration
Objection no. 1 to Page 3:1-5: OVERRULED.
Objection no. 2 to Page 3:6: SUSTAINED based on lack of personal knowledge.
Objection no. 3 to Page 3:6-8: OVERRULED.
Objection no. 4 to Page 3:9: SUSTAINED based on lack of personal knowledge.
Objection no. 5 to Exhibits 17 and 18: OVERRULED.
Objection no. 6 to Page 4:10-11: SUSTAINED in part only as to “he informed us that the Vehicle was at his other residence in San Bruno” based on hearsay. The remainder is OVERRULED.
Objection no. 7 to Page 4:16-17: SUSTAINED based on hearsay.
Objection no. 8 to Page 5:9-11: OVERRULED.
Objection no. 9 to Page 5:24-25: SUSTAINED in part only as to “Mr. Podesta stated he purchased the Vehicle from Royal Krieger on December 5, 1977” based on hearsay. The remainder is OVERRULED.
(b) Objections to Plaintiff’s Declaration
Objection no. 1 to Page 2:9-10: SUSTAINED based on hearsay.
Objection no. 2 to Page 4:16-17: OVERRULED.
Objection no. 3 to Page 5:1-2: OVERRULED.
Objection no. 4 to Page 5:4-6: SUSTAINED based on hearsay.
Objection no. 5 to Page 5:7-9: SUSTAINED based on hearsay.
Objection no. 6 to Page 5:21-24: SUSTAINED in part only as to “Raymond informed Mr. Podesta that we rightfully own the vehicle” based on hearsay. The remainder is OVERRULED.