Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV04750, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 24CHCV04750    Hearing Date: May 28, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION

Motion filed: 12/31/24

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Allegiant Partners Incorporated

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of Possession against Defendant for one 2022 Dodge 5500 vehicle.

TENTATIVE RULING: The Application for Writ of Possession is DENIED AS MOOT.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from an alleged breach of contract.

On December 24, 2024, Plaintiff Allegiant Partners Incorporated (“Plaintiff” or “Allegiant”) filed the Complaint against Defendants CNS Auto Inc. (“CNS”) and Khachatur Hayrapetyan (“Hayrapetyan”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 100, alleging five causes of action: (1) breach of written finance agreement, (2) breach of personal guaranty, (3) foreclosure of security and possession of collateral, (4) account stated, and (5) open book.

Subsequently, default was entered against Defendants on April 11, 2025, and the Court entered Judgment by Default on April 24, 2025.

On December 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Application for Writ of Possession (the Application).

No Oppositions to the Application have been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 712.010 provides, in part: “After entry of a judgment for possession or sale of property, a writ of possession or sale shall be issued by the clerk of the court upon application of the judgment creditor and shall be directed to the levying officer in the county where the judgment is to be enforced. The application shall include a declaration under penalty of perjury stating the daily rental value of the property as of the date the complaint for unlawful detainer was filed.”

In contrast, “California’s claim and delivery law (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 511.010-516.050) authorizes the issuance of a prejudgment writ of possession for specific personal property.” (Sea Rail Truckloads, Inc. v. Pullman, Inc. (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 511, 514, underlines added.) “Except as otherwise provided this section, no writ shall be issued under this chapter except after a hearing on a noticed motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 512.020, subd. (a).) Prior to the hearing, applicant must serve respondent with (1) a copy of the summons and complaint, (2) a notice of application and hearing, and (3) a copy of the application and any affidavit in support thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 512.030, subd. (a).)¿

            Here, Plaintiff’s Application, filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, seeks a prejudgment writ of possession in a claim and delivery action.

            However, the entry of the default judgment on April 24, 2025, renders the prejudgment writ application MOOT.

The judgment conclusively awards Plaintiff possession of the Collateral, resolving the issue of Plaintiff’s entitlement to the property. (See Wilson v. L.A. County Civil Service Comm’n (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 450, 453 [a matter is moot when the court can no longer grant effective relief].) A prejudgment writ under Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010 is no longer necessary or appropriate, as the proper mechanism to enforce the judgment’s possession order is a post-judgment writ of possession pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 712.010.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of Possession, filed December 31, 2024, is DENIED AS MOOT, without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an application for a post-judgment writ of possession pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 712.010.

CONCLUSION

The Application for Writ of Possession filed by Plaintiff Allegiant Partners Incorporated is DENIED AS MOOT without prejudice.