Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STLC00138, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC00138    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: 86

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION

Date:               4/16/24 (1:30 PM) 

Case:               Arturo Fausto v. Rigoberto Tejada Jimenez (23STLC00138) 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Arturo Fausto’s Application for Writ of Possession is DENIED.

Under CCP § 512.010(b)(3), an application for writ of possession must contain a statement of the value of the subject vehicle. Although plaintiff provides a statement of the vehicle, plaintiff does not provide a statement of its value.

Further, under CCP § 512.060, plaintiff mush establish the probable validity of his claim before a writ of possession shall issue. “A claim has "probable validity" where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim.”  (CCP § 511.090.)

According to plaintiff, he is the owner of a 1972 Chevy Z-10. (Certificate of Title and Registration attached to Application.) Plaintiff’s brother stored the vehicle in the home of defendant Rigoberto Tejada Jimenez without plaintiff’s consent. (App. ¶ 3.) Defendant refuses to give plaintiff his vehicle. (Ibid.)

According to defendant, plaintiff’s brother, Angel Fausto, is the actual owner of the subject vehicle. (Jimenez Decl. ¶ 2.) In November 2020, Angel and defendant entered into an oral agreement to purchase the subject vehicle for $10,000. (Jimenez Decl. ¶ 2.) At the time of the purchase of the vehicle, plaintiff and his brother represented that the vehicle was titled in Angel’s name because Angel had legal issues with child support. (Jimenez Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant made a down payment of $3,000, after which plaintiff gave defendant the Certificate of Title. (Jimenez Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5.) Plaintiff agreed to release title to defendant once defendant completed all installment payments to Angel. (Jimenez Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff assisted defendant in physically loading the vehicle onto defendant’s trailer for towing to defendant’s residence. (Jimenez Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant has made all payments, but plaintiff has not signed over title to defendant. (Jimenez Decl. ¶ 7.)

On this record, this Court cannot find it more likely than not that plaintiff will obtain a judgment in his favor against defendant.  While that may ultimately come to pass, with respect to the instant application, plaintiff fails in his burden to demonstrate that would be the likely result.

For the foregoing reasons, the application is DENIED.