Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 24CHCV00128, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV00128, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00128 Hearing Date: June 20, 2024 Dept: F43

Dept. F-43

Date: 6-20-24

Case #24CHCV00128 , Amada America, Inc. vs. Umbrella Precision, Inc.

Trial Date: N/A

APPLICATION FOR PRE-TRIAL WRIT OF POSSESSION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Amada America, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Umbrella Precision, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff is requesting possession of a laser cutting machine.

RULING: Writ of possession is granted. The temporary restraining order is denied.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Defendant Umbrella Precision, Inc. (Umbrella) bought a Laser Cutting Machine from Plaintiff Amada America, Inc. (Amada).

On April 4, 2024, this Court denied a substantially similar application for temporary restraining order and a writ of possession. With the current writ, Amada is arguing, based on what Umbrella says is a mischaracterization of the declaration, that the declaration of Eduardo Martinez demonstrates that Umbrella is not properly maintaining the Laser Cutting Machine that it bought from Amada. Umbrella argues that this was the same contention that Amada made before. Next, Umbrella argues that Amada also reiterates the claim that Umbrella does not have insurance coverage to safeguard the Laser Cutter, but Mr. Martinez previously refuted this allegation by providing proof of insurance.

If Amada is seeking reconsideration of the prior ruling, Umbrella argues in its May 16, 2024, opposition that Amada has not complied with the requirements for reconsideration because it is untimely and based on improper grounds for reconsideration.

Amada argues in its supplemental points and authorities, filed on June 6, 2024, that the writ of possession is proper because Umbrella has defaulted on its contract and owes $550,000 to Amada. Next, Amada argues that no undertaking is required from it because Umbrella has no interest in the Laser Cutter. Finally, Amada provides the location of the Laser Cutter. Amada makes no reference to the issue of maintenance of the Laser Cutter in its supplemental points and authorities, beyond a vague reference to the idea that Amada may have to pay to have the Laser Cutter refurbished if it has suffered any damage or premature attrition.

Umbrella filed a supplemental opposition on June 6, 2024. In this opposition, Umbrella represents that it offered to have Amada remove the Laser Cutter (which weighs 28,000 pounds) from Umbrella’s facility. Umbrella also offered that Amada could send someone to inspect the Laser Cutter if it had concerns about the machine’s condition. Finally, Umbrella also offered to store the Laser Cutter at its facility for Amada, but would not do so free of charge. Umbrella represents that there is no dispute that Amada may pick up the Laser Cutter from Umbrella, so there is no basis for a writ of possession because Umbrella is not wrongfully detaining the property. (CCP § 512.010(b)(2).) As for the TRO, Umbrella argues that Amada’s unwillingness to pick up the Laser Cutter undercuts any notion that there is immediate danger to the Laser Cutter justifying a TRO. However, none of Umbrella’s representations are supported by a declaration, so these representations should be disregarded.

Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice: Plaintiff is requesting that the Court take judicial notice of its declaration for ex parte writ of possession filed on May 15 and Defendant’s opposition to the ex parte writ of possession. The Court grants this request.

ANALYSIS

Because Amada’s supplemental points and authorities was based solely on the issue of Umbrella’s failure to pay, the Court will treat this writ as a normally noticed writ of possession rather than an ex parte writ of possession. Therefore, no showing needs to be made pursuant to CCP § 512.020(b)(3)(ii) that Umbrella is failing to properly maintain the Laser Cutter. The only showing needed, as discussed below, is a showing of the probable validity of Amada’s right to possession.

Upon a showing of the probable validity of a plaintiff’s right to possession of the property claimed, a writ of possession shall be issued, subject to any possible bond or undertaking. (CCP § 512.060.) The 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.) Once the requirements for issuance of the writ are met, CCP § 512.070 authorizes an order directing the defendant to transfer possession of the property to plaintiff. When necessary, the Court may take additional oral and documentary evidence at the claim and delivery hearing. (CCP § 512.050.)

With its supplemental points and authorities filed on June 6, Amada has met the requirements set forth in the CCP for an application for writ of possession. Amada has established that it would likely obtain a judgment based on the declaration and evidence submitted by Amada that Umbrella is in default on its payments under the contract. Amada is entitled to possession of the Laser Cutter given Umbrella’s failure to pay. The location of the Laser Cutter is known to be in Umbrella’s facility on Osborne Street in Canoga Park.

Amada also argues that no undertaking is required because Umbrella has no interest in the Laser. (See CCP §§ 512.060(a)(2); 515.010.) Umbrella currently owes $573,416.37 on a machine that is valued at approximately $450,000. (Conniff Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7.) Amada also holds a valid and enforceable UCC Financing Statement on the Laser Cutter. (Conniff Decl., Ex. C.) Finally, the Laser Cutter has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff. (Conniff Decl., ¶ 8; see CCP § 512.010(b)(5).) No undertaking is required.

Based on the foregoing, Amada has met the requirements for a writ of possession under CCP § 512.060.

As for the temporary restraining, Amada’s supplemental points and authorities do not address it. The TRO appears to be a non-issue at this point and is denied.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants Amada’s application for the writ of possession. The temporary restraining order is denied.

Amada is ordered to prepare a proposed writ of possession and submit it to the Court.

Moving party to give notice.