Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case Number: 24STLC05325, Date: 2024-10-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STLC05325, Date: 2024-10-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC05325 Hearing Date: October 1, 2024 Dept: 86

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION

Date: 10/1/24 (1:30 PM)

Case: Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC v. Marshon Burgess et al. (24STCV05159)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Application for Writ of Possession by plaintiff Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC is GRANTED. The Court finds that plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claim to possession of the property, namely, a 2019 Mercedes-Benz E300 motor vehicle (VIN WDDZF4JB3KA517664).

Plaintiff is the assignee of a written Retail Installment Sales Contract (“RISC”) with defendant Marshon Burgess for the purchase of a motor vehicle. (Springer Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14, 18 & Exs. 1-2.) Under the RISC, upon default of any provision, plaintiff has the right to take the vehicle from defendant Burgess without demand. (Springer Decl. ¶¶ 12, 18 & Ex. 1 at ¶ 3(d).) Burgess has defaulted in payment on the RISC. (Springer Decl. ¶¶ 16, 17.)

In March 2023, plaintiff discovered that the vehicle was involved in a collision occurring in December 2022. (Springer Decl. ¶¶ 19, 20.) On August 1, 2023, plaintiff discovered that defendant EM & VR Corporation dba A1 Smog and Repair (“A1 Smog”) had been in possession of the vehicle as of February 2023. A1 Smog has claimed a lien on the vehicle in the amount of $25,400.52, including $9,200.52 for repairs and $16,400.00 for storage. (Springer Decl. ¶ 27 & Ex. 4.)

A1 Smog did not obtain written consent from plaintiff, the legal owner, before storing or repairing the vehicle. (Springer Decl. ¶¶ 22, 23, 25 [describing repair and storage fees as unauthorized].) Accordingly, any lien from A1 Smog cannot exceed the amounts set forth in Civil Code § 3068(c)(1). Plaintiff has offered A1 Smog the maximum statutory sum for storage and services, but A1 refuses to return the vehicle. (Springer Decl. ¶ 28; Dornin Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff asserts that A1 Smog’s statutory lien has been extinguished because A1 Smog did not apply for authorization to conduct a lien sale or file an action in court within 30 days after the lien arose. (Springer Decl. ¶ 22; see Civil Code §§ 3068(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B).) The Court agrees. The lien arises when a written statement of charges for completed work is given to the registered owner or 15 days after the work is completed, whichever occurs first. (Civ. Code § 3068(a).) Here, the invoice presented by A1 Smog indicates that it was presented to Burgess through his relative on August 19, 2023. (Martinez Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. 2 [“Invoiced: 8/19/2023 11:13 AM PDT”]; Springer Decl. ¶ 27 & Ex. 4 [same].) Indeed, the invoice is also clear that the repairs were completed at least of the August 19, 2023 date of the invoice, stating: “The work is complete, and your payment is due upon pickup of the vehicle.” (Martinez Decl. Ex. 2 at 2.) Based on the August 19, 2023 invoice, A1 Smog had at most until September 18, 2023—i.e., 30 days from the date of the invoice—to apply for authorization to conduct a lien sale.

Notwithstanding what the documentary evidence shows, A1 Smog contends that it did not actually complete its work on the vehicle until June 17, 2024, and therefore timely applied for authorization to conduct a lien sale on July 1, 2024. (Martinez Decl. ¶ 9 & Exs. 2, 3.) This assertion is not credible. To begin with, as noted above, the invoice A1 Smog submits made clear that, as of August 19, 2023, “[t]he work is complete.” (Martinez Decl. Ex. a at 2.) Nonetheless, A1 Smog’s representative declares that, after having made most of the repairs, Burgess and his relative were unable to pay. The A1 Smog representative further states that A1 Smog negotiated with plaintiff for payment of the storage and repair costs but was unable to reach agreement. (Martinez Decl. ¶ 8.) However, that negotiation between A1 Smog and plaintiff took place in or about August 2023. (Springer Decl. ¶¶ 24, 25 [A1 Smog rejected plaintiff’s offer of payment after inspection on August 19, 2023.) And yet, despite not having received any payment from either defendant Burgess or plaintiff, A1 Smog claims that it went ahead and conducted repairs that were finally completed on June 17, 2024. (Martinez Decl. ¶ 9.) A1 Smog’s assertion that it continued making repairs despite not having any agreement for payment is not credible. Moreover, A1 Smog’s July 1, 2024 application for lien sale authorization indicates that A1 Smog’s lien for repairs is for $9,200.52. (Martinez Decl. ¶ 10 & Ex. 3 at 1.) That is the total amount for repairs that A1 Smog claimed were due in its August 19, 2023 invoice (see Martinez Decl. Ex. 2 at 1), thereby rendering A1 Smog’s claim that it continued to conduct repairs up until June 17, 2024 entirely incredible. A1 Smog thus untimely applied for authorization on July 1, 2024. (Martinez Decl. ¶ 10 & Ex. 3.)

Lastly, A1 Smog claims that it has a lien on the vehicle pursuant to Civil Code § 3068.1. But section 3068.1 is inapplicable here. Section 3068.1 creates a lien for those who are entitled to compensation for towing, storing, and providing labor related to such towing and storage. (Civil Code § 3068.1; see also Civil Code § 3068.2 [referring to tow truck operators with a lien pursuant to § 3068.1; County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 475, 486 [noting that, under § 3068.1, the “towing company obtains a lien on the vehicle for the towing, storage, and labor costs incurred”].) Here, A1 Smog did not tow and store the subject vehicle. Rather, as conceded by A1 Smog’s representative, the vehicle was “delivered to us.” (Martinez Decl. ¶ 4.) Indeed, A1 Smog further concedes the inapplicability of § 3068.1 in its Application for Lien Sale Authorization, wherein A1 Smog lists “$0.00” for “Towing Cost” and leaves blank the data field for “Date of Towing and Storage.” (Martinez Decl. Ex. 3 at 1.)

Thus, to the extent A1 Smog claims a lien for storage, its rights arise only under section 3068. (See Civil Code § 3068 [providing for lien for compensation “for making repairs . . . and for the storage, repair, or safekeeping” of such vehicle”].) But, as discussed above, A1Smog’s lien rights under section 3068 have been extinguished due to its untimely application for authorization to conduct a lien sale or file an action in court within 30 days after the lien arose.

For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff is entitled to an Order for Writ of Possession. The Court further finds that a turnover order under CCP § 512.070 is warranted here.

Plaintiff shall post an undertaking in the amount of $51,000, which is more than double the amount of A1 Smog’s asserted lien. (Motion at 7:20-25.)

For redelivery, defendant EM & VR Corporation dba A1 Smog and Repair must post an undertaking in the amount of $26,000, equal to the current market value of the vehicle. (Springer Decl. ¶ 31 & Ex. 5.)