Case Number: 19GDCV01507 Hearing Date: February 14, 2020 Dept: E

WRIT OF POSSESSION

[CCP § 512.010 et. seq]

Date: 2/14/20

Case: VW Credit, Inc. v. Lusine Jaghinyan (19GDCV01507)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff VW Credit, Inc.’s Application for Writ of Possession is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff fails to provide a proof of service indicating that defendant Lusine Jaghinyan was served with the Notice of Application for Writ of Possession and Hearing, a copy of the application, points and authorities, and supporting affidavits in the same manner as a summons, as required by CCP § 512.030(b). Any future applications must be filed and served at least 16 court days before the hearing, plus additional days depending on the method of service, in accordance with CCP §§ 512.020(a) and 1005(b).

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, plaintiff has failed to establish to the satisfaction of the Court the probable validity of its claim to possession of the property. It is not clear from the illegible Lease Agreement provided to the Court (Lynch Decl. Ex. 1) that plaintiff has any interest in the subject vehicle. The Court is unable to ascertain if the parties agreed to any provision pursuant to which plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession of the vehicle under the circumstances presented. It also cannot be ascertained if the Lease Agreement actually contains a provision assigning the rights to enforce it to VW Credit, Inc., which claims to possess all right, title, and interest in the agreement and underlying security. (Lynch Decl. ¶ 4.)