Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV06732, Date: 2025-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV06732    Hearing Date: March 14, 2025    Dept: A

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

BMO Bank, N.A. (Plaintiff) brings this action against Diana Abramyan (Defendant) in connection with Loan and Security Agreement wherein Plaintiff financed Defendant’s acquisition of a 2022 Kenworth T680 Truck (the Subject Vehicle). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has defaulted on payments. Plaintiff states three causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Claim and Delivery, and (3) Conversion.

Before the Court is an application made by Plaintiff for a Writ of Possession. Plaintiff seeks to recover the Subject Vehicle so that it may recoup funds toward the defaulted agreement. Defendant has filed no response.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

C.C.P. § 512.030 requires personal service of an application for writ of possession in instances where the defendant has not appeared in the action. Defendant has not appeared in this matter and thus Plaintiff must personally serve this application or demonstrate that the circumstances are such that substitute service is proper. (See C.C.P. § 415.20(b).) The Court finds Plaintiff has done neither.

Plaintiff’s proof of service of this Application reflects substitute service on “Tigran Balayan, co-tenant” at 8006 St Clair Ave North Hollywood, CA 91605. (See February 5, 2025 Proof of Service.) The Proof of Service specifically notes that “Tigran Doe” informed the process server that Defendant was the previous occupant of the above address. (Id. at p. 6.) This statement indicates to the Court that substitute service upon this person is not proper for purposes of this motion.  

In short, the Court finds Plaintiff did not personally serve this application nor demonstrate why substitute service was proper. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application is DENIED without prejudice.

---

RULING:

In the event a party requests a signed order or the Court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

BMO Bank, N.A.’s Applications for Writ of Possession came on regularly for hearing on March 14, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the Court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.