Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCV05159, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05159    Hearing Date: May 28, 2024    Dept: 86

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION

Date:               5/28/24 (1:30 PM) 

Case:               Mercedes-Benz Vehicle Trust v. Hien Thi Vo et al. (24STCV05159) 

TENTATIVE RULING:

The UNOPPOSED Application for Writ of Possession by plaintiff Mercedes-Benz Vehicle Trust is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claim to possession of the property, namely, a 2020 Mercedes-Benz G63W4 motor vehicle (VIN W1NYC7HJ3LX349576).

Plaintiff is the successor of the assignee of a written lease with defendant Hien Thi Vo for the lease of a motor vehicle. (McClurg Decl. ¶¶ 2, 12, 14, 18 & Exs. 1-3.) Under the lease, upon default of any provision, plaintiff has the right to take the vehicle from defendant Vo without demand. (McClurg Decl. ¶ 30 & Ex. 1 at ¶ 23(c).) Vo has defaulted in payment on the lease. (McClurg Decl. ¶¶ 28, 29 & Ex. 6.)

On January 20, 2023, the vehicle was towed to defendant Weho Collision Center (“Weho”) for an estimate to repair the damage that had resulted from an accident. (McClurg Decl. ¶¶ 16, 21 & Ex. 5.) Weho has claimed a lien on the vehicle in the amount of $1,250 for towing, $45,000 for repairs, and $4,500 for storage. (McClurg Decl. ¶ 19 & Ex. 4.) Plaintiff’s representative declares that “[a]t no time did WEHO seek prior approval from Plaintiff to take possession, and store the Vehicle, nor did Plaintiff give any such approval for the alleged storage fees incurred by WEHO.” (McClurg Decl. ¶ 17; see also McClurg Decl. ¶ 19 [“At no time prior to June 21, 2023, was Plaintiff notified that WEHO was in possession of the Vehicle”].)

Plaintiff’s evidence establishes a probably valid claim that Vo transferred the vehicle to Weho; that plaintiff never authorized or consented to the subject vehicle being towed, stored, or repaired by Weho; and that any statutory lien to which Weho is entitled is limited to the amounts stated in Civil Code § 3068(c)(1). Plaintiff has offered Weho the maximum statutory sum for storage, but Weho refuses to return the vehicle. (Caley Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5.)

Plaintiff also contends that Weho’s statutory lien has been extinguished because Weho did not apply for authorization to conduct a lien sale or file an action in court within 30 days after the lien arose. (Mtn. at 4:5-11; see Civil Code §§ 3068(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B).) The Court finds these arguments to be persuasive and supported by plaintiff’s evidence. (McClurg Decl. ¶¶ 11, 19, 21, 26, 27 [lien sale denied by DMV on 9/11/23]; Caley Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5 [discussions with Weho’s counsel and manager], 9 [lien sale filed and opposed in September 2023].) Indeed, defendant has not opposed plaintiff’s claim that the lien was extinguished as a matter of law. (See Sehulster Tunnels/Pre-Con v. Traylor Brothers, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1328, 1345, fn. 16 [failure to address point is “equivalent to a concession”].) To the extent necessary for issuance of a pre-judgment writ of possession, plaintiff has shown a probably valid claim of extinguishment of the statutory lien.

The Court finds that a turnover order under CCP § 512.070 is warranted here.

Plaintiff shall post an undertaking in the amount of $101,500, which is double the amount of the lien asserted by defendant Weho. (McClurg Decl. ¶ 19 & Ex. 4.)

For redelivery, defendant Weho Collision Center must post an undertaking in the amount of $150,186, which is equal to the current market value of the vehicle (as opposed to the $151,000 requested by plaintiff). (McClurg Decl. ¶ 33 & Ex. C.)

The Court will sign the Proposed Order, electronically received 3/8/24, with corrections in accordance herewith.