Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 20TRCV00393, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20TRCV00393    Hearing Date: September 9, 2022    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

 

 

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                                      Friday, September 9, 2022

Department B                                                                                                                                               Calendar No. 2

 


 

 

PROCEEDINGS

 

            People of the State of California, et al. v. My Linh Nguyen, et al.

20TRCV00393

  1. City of Lawndale’s Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling

     

    TENTATIVE RULING

     

                City of Lawndale’s Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling is continued.

     

                Background

     

                Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on December 19, 2019.  Plaintiffs allege the following facts.  Plaintiffs, People of the State of California, People of the City of Lawndale, Ex Rel. Tiffany Israel, the duly appointed City Attorney of the City of Lawndale, and the City of Lawndale (“City”), filed a Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief to abate substandard and unpermitted violations existing on the property commonly known as 4703 W. 164th Street in the City of Lawndale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, further identified as Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Number 4080-012-036.

     

                Application for Sale of Dwelling

     

                CCP § 704.750 provides “(a) Promptly after a dwelling is levied upon (other than a dwelling described in subdivision (b) of Section 704.740), the levying officer shall serve notice on the judgment creditor that the levy has been made and that the property will be released unless the judgment creditor complies with the requirements of this section.  Service shall be made personally or by mail. Within 20 days after service of the notice, the judgment creditor shall apply to the court for an order for sale of the dwelling and shall file a copy of the application with the levying officer. If the judgment creditor does not file the copy of the application for an order for sale of the dwelling within the allowed time, the levying officer shall release the dwelling.”

     

                In exercising its discretion to determine whether the property should be sold, the Court may consider the following factors: 1. Whether the obligation is currently being paid; 2. The probable proceeds to be obtained by sale of the obligation; 3. The costs of collection if the obligation is not sold; 4. The availability to the judgment creditor of other enforcement procedures to reach other property of the judgment debtor. See Comment to CCP § 701.520.

     

     

                On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $6,615.50, as well as an order for enjoinment and abatement of the conditions on the property.  On January 27, 2021, an abstract of judgment was recorded in this amount.  On March 3, 2022, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County levied on Defendant’s interest in the real property and dwelling under a writ of execution in the amount of $7,792.00 that was issued on January 14, 2022.  Plaintiff seeks an order for sale of a dwelling in order to satisfy the judgment.  The interest of a natural person in a dwelling may be sold to enforce a money judgment.  CCP § 704.740 et seq.  Here, the Sheriff gave Defendants notice of the levy on March 3, 2022.  (Declaration, Sargsyan, ¶ 6.)

     

                The application is continued for the following reasons.  First, there is no showing that the applicant served the application for order for sale of dwelling upon the Defendant. In addition, the applicant failed to submit competent evidence to demonstrate the fair market value of the subject property, the liens and encumbrances that exist on the property, the existence of any exemptions on the property, and whether there is sufficient equity in the property to justify a sale.  Arguments in the points and authorities and/or conclusory statements made by Plaintiff’s counsel does not constitute competent evidence.

     

                Thus, the application is continued to October 14, 2022.  Any additional evidence that is sought to be introduced by applicant is to be filed and served by September 30, 2022. Any supplemental opposition is to be filed and served by October 7, 2022.  No reply is authorized.

     

                Judgment creditor is ordered provide notice of this ruling.