2013-00151482-CL-PO

Robert McDaris vs. Jessica Hunt

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Filed By: Pacheco, Charles A.

Plaintiff McDaris’ motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED. The OSC Re:
Preliminary Injunction is discharged. The TRO is vacated.

This is an action for conversion and injunctive relief. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary
injunction prohibiting Defendants State of California Department of Motor Vehicles and
George Valverde in his official capacity as Director of DMV, their agents, servants, and
employees from:

(1) transferring any rights, title, or interest in or to the 1979 Masterfab boat, Vessel Hull
Number HKR001220279 (the “Boat”),

(2) registering or reregistering the Boat under is registration number in the name of any
new owner, and

(3) issuing any new registration card or certificate of ownership or title to the Boat.

The Court issued the TRO on September 27, 2013.

In deciding whether to enter a preliminary injunction, the court must evaluate two
interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits at trial,
and (2) the interim harm that the applicant will likely suffer if preliminary relief is not
granted, as compared to the likely harm that the opposing party will suffer if the
preliminary injunction issues. (See, e.g., Langford v. Superior Court (Gates) (1987) 43
Cal.3d 21, 28.) One of these two factors may be accorded greater weight than the
other depending on the applicant’s showing. (See Commons Cause v. Bd. of
Supervisors (1989) 49Cal.3d 432, 447.)

Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits

Plaintiff presents evidence that on April 4, 2012, he obtained ownership of the Boat as
a result of a lien sale. (See Declaration of Robert McDaris.) On October 12, 2012, he
filed an unlawful detainer against Defendant Jessica Hunt (“Hunt”) for failure to pay
rent. (Id.) The parties thereafter entered into an agreement (“Stipulation and Order”)
whereby Hunt would pay back rent of $1917.27 on or before January 5, 2013. (Id.)
Pursuant to the Stipulation and Order, Hunt would remain in possession of the Boat
and the slip for so long as she was in complaince the terms of the Stipulation and
Order and the Installment and Security Agreement. (Id.) If Hunt fell more than 60
days behind in payments at any one time, she would be found in default and lose all
interest in the Boat. (Id.) Plaintiff never received any payments from Hunt for back
rent or for the purchase of the vehicle. (Id.) On January 24, 2013, Hunt was evicted
from the Boat. (Id.) In April 2013, the DMV contacted Plaintiff and told him that to
perfect the original lien, he needed to obtain a fair market value statement verifying the
value of the Boat. (Id.) He had the Boat appraised and had a second lien place on the
Boat. (Id.) After he submitted the documents to perfect the lien, but before it was
authorized, Hunt had Plaintiff’s name removed from the Boat’s registration and had her
name added in its place. (Id.) In August 2013, Hunt filed an unlawful detainer against
Scott Jackson who is currently renting the Boat from Plaintiff. (Id.)

In opposition to the motion, Hunt argues that Plaintiff breached the Stipulation and
Order. According to Hunt, she made the first installment payment. Plaintiff, however,
indicated that he was no longer interested in selling the boat to Defendant. She further
argues that Plaintiff’s lien against the Boat was invalidated due to his failure to follow
DMV requirements, thus, he is not the title owner of the Boat. According to Hunt, she
is the proper title holder to the Boat because in October 2011, she entered into a
contract with the prior owner, Bradley Purnell, to purchase the Boat, and made
payments to him. When Plaintiff’s original lien was declared invalid, the title reverted
back to Purnell. In March, Hunt contacted DMV and provided proof of her contract to
purchase the Boat from Purnell and Hunt was provide title to the Boat.

Although Hunt makes the above arguments in her opposition, she fails to proffer any
evidence to support opposition. She has not proffered her own declaration or any
other documentary evidence to demonstrate that Plaintiff is not likely to prevail on the
merits.

Given the above, the Court finds that for the purposes of this motion only, that Plaintiff
has demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

Balancing of the Harms

Plaintiff is concerned that Hunt will sell the Boat at any time and that unless an
injunction is issued, the DMV’s transfer of title would be a violation of his rights to
possession and control of the Boat, tending to render a later judgment ineffectual and
would cause him irreparable injury. (See Declaration of Robert McDaris.)

Hunt contends (without any evidentiary support) that the Boat is her and her
daughter’s primary residence and she has no intention of selling it. She has been
forced live in a mobile home, which does not have a bathroom or shower.

As Hunt fails to proffer any evidence to support her opposition, the Court finds that the
relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim
injunctive relief tips in Plaintiff’s favor.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling forthwith.

No later than November 8, 2013, Plaintiff is directed to lodge a formal order for the
court’s signature and post an undertaking in the amount of $10,000. (CCP § 529(a);
CRC 3.1150(f).) The TRO shall remain in effect until the court enters the preliminary
injunction but in any case shall dissolve no later than 5:00PM on November 15, 2013.

Counsel for moving party is directed to contact opposing party or counsel for opposing
party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the court’s tentative ruling
procedure. If counsel for moving party is unable to contact opposing party/counsel for
opposing party prior to hearing, counsel for moving party shall be available at the
hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without
following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).