Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 23STCV31162, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Chol Enterprises, Inc. v. 740 South Broadway Associates, LLC, 23STCV31162

Tentative decision on application for a writ of possession: denied

Plaintiff Chol Enterprises, Inc. (“Tenant”) seeks a writ of possession against Defendant 740 South Broadway Associates, LLC (“Landlord”) to recover four types of “Irreplaceable Belongings” and 50 categories of “Additional Belongings” (collectively, “Belongings”).

The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply,[1] and renders the following tentative decision.

Plaintiff Tenant filed the Complaint on December 21, 2023. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on December 26, 2023 alleging breach of contract, trespass to chattels, conversion, and two counts of unfair competition under Business and Professions (“Bus. & Prof.”) Code section 17200. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows.

Tenant took possession of the Globe Theatre at 740 South Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90014 (“Premises”) in October 2012, spending two years and $5 million to renovate it.

On November 11, 2023, Tenant received an eviction notice for the Premises. On November 14, 2023, Tenant and Landlord’s manager Houman Sarshar (“Sarshar”) orally agreed that Tenant had until December 13, 2023, to vacate its Belongings from the Premises. Despite this oral agreement, Landlord changed the lock and brought a security guard with a dog to the Premises on November 27, 2023, at 7:00 a.m. This kept Tenant from performing its obligations under the oral agreement.

On December 4, 2023, between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., the parties met at the Premises to take inventory of Tenant’s Belongings to be removed. To cure Landlord’s decision to prevent Tenant from removing its Belongings by locking it out, the parties orally agreed that five HVAC compressors outside the Premises would remain as substitute payment for any storage fees for the rest of the Belongings.

Despite this second agreement, at 6:49 p.m. that day, Landlord sent Tenant a demand for $28,000 in storage fees, plus daily fees of $2,000, effective December 16. Landlord also sought to keep all Belongings nailed to the wall, including Tenant equipment, and a Certificate of Insurance listing Landlord as an additional insured.

Tenant seeks equitable relief granting access to remove its Belongings, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

On January 27, 2024, Tenant personally served Landlord with the FAC and Summons.

On January 5, 2024, and again on February 8, 2024, the court denied Tenant’s ex parte application for a writ of possession, in part for failure to demonstrate an emergency. The court noted that post-judgment writs of possession belong in the department where case was assigned. LASC 2.8. While Tenant has filed this new lawsuit, the writ of possession may belong in the unlawful detainer department handling 740 Broadway Associates, LLC v. Chol Enterprises, Inc., 22 STCV1203 (the “UD Action”). Tenant was ordered to file a notice of related case in the UD Action. The court has reviewed the court file in the UD Action and Tenant failed to comply with its order.

A writ of possession is issued as a provisional remedy in a cause of action for claim and delivery, also known as replevin. See Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman, (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1288. As a provisional remedy, the right to possession is only temporary, and title and the right to possess are determined in the final judgment.

A writ of possession is available in any pending action. It also is available where an action has been stayed pending arbitration, so long as the arbitration award may be ineffectual without provisional relief. See CCP §1281.7.

Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, a plaintiff may apply for an order for a writ of possession. Unlike attachment, where Judicial Council forms are optional, the parties must use the mandatory approved Judicial Council forms in a claim and delivery proceeding. (Judicial Council Forms CD-100 et seq.).

A plaintiff must make a written application for a writ of possession. CCP §512.010(a), (b); (Mandatory Form CD-100); CCP §512.010(a). A verified complaint alone is insufficient. 6 Witkin, California Procedure, (5th ed. 2008) §255, p.203. The application may be supported by declarations and/or a verified complaint. CCP §516.030. The declarations or complaint must set forth admissible evidence except where expressly permitted to be shown on information and belief. Id.

The application must be executed under oath and include: (1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed. If the plaintiff's claim is based on a written instrument, a copy of it must be attached; (2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, how the defendant came into possession of it, and, the reasons for the detention based on the plaintiff’s best knowledge, information, and belief; (3) A specific description of the property and statement of its value; (4) The location of the property according to the plaintiff’s best knowledge, information, and belief. If the property, or some part of it, is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, a showing of probable cause to believe that the property is located there; and (5) A statement that the property has not been taken for (a) a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute, or (b) an execution against the plaintiff’s property. Alternatively, a statement that if the property was seized for one of these purposes, it is by statute exempt from such seizure. CCP §512.010(b).

Before noticing a hearing, the plaintiff must serve the defendant with all of the following: (1) A copy of the summons and complaint; (2) A Notice of Application and Hearing; and (3) A copy of the application and any supporting declaration. CCP §512.030(a). If the defendant has not appeared in the action, service must be made in the same manner as service of summons and complaint. CCP §512.030(b).

Each party shall file with the court and serve upon the other party any declarations and points and authorities intended to be relied upon at the hearing. CCP §512.050. At the hearing, the court decides the merits of the application based on the pleadings and declarations. Id. Upon a showing of good cause, the court may receive and consider additional evidence and authority presented at the hearing, or may continue the hearing for the production of such additional evidence, oral or documentary, or the filing of other affidavits or points and authorities. Id.

The court may order issuance of a writ of possession if both of the following are found: (1) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the plaintiff’s claim to possession of the property; and (2) The undertaking requirements of CCP section 515.010 are satisfied. CCP §512.060(a). “A 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. This requires that the plaintiff establish a prima facie case; the writ shall not issue if the defendant shows a reasonable probability of a successful defense to the claim and delivery cause of action. Witkin, California Procedure, (5th ed. 2008) §261, p.208. A defendant’s claim of defect in the property is not a defense to the plaintiff’s right to possess it. RCA Service Co. v. Superior Court, (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 1, 3.

No writ directing the levying officer to enter a private place to take possession of any property may be issued unless the plaintiff has established that there is probable cause to believe that the property is located there. CCP §512.060(b).

The successful plaintiff may obtain a preliminary injunction containing the same provisions as a TRO that remains in effect until the property is seized by the levying officer.[2] CCP §513.010(c).

The court may also issue a “turnover order” directing the defendant to transfer possession of the property to the plaintiff (See Mandatory Form CD-120). The order must notify the defendant that failure to comply may subject him or her to contempt of court. CCP §512.070. The turnover remedy is not issued in lieu of a writ, but in conjunction with it to provide the plaintiff with a less expensive means of obtaining possession. See Edwards v Superior Court, (“Edwards”) (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 173, 178.

Generally, the court cannot issue an order for a writ of possession until the plaintiff has filed an undertaking with the court (Mandatory Form CD-140 for personal sureties). CCP §515.010(a). The undertaking shall provide that the sureties are bound to the defendant for the return of the property to the defendant, if return of the property is ordered, and for the payment to the defendant of any sum recovered against the plaintiff. Id. The undertaking shall be in an amount not less than twice the value of the defendant's interest in the property or in a greater amount. Id. The value of the defendant's interest in the property is determined by the market value of the property less the amount due and owing on any conditional sales contract or security agreement and all liens and encumbrances on the property, and any other factors necessary to determine the defendant’s interest in the property. Id.

However, where the defendant has no interest in the property, the court must waive the requirement of the plaintiff’s undertaking and include in the order for issuance of the writ the amount of the defendant’s undertaking sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CCP section 515.020(b). CCP §515.010(b).

On October 10, 2012, Tenant entered a lease for the Premises (“Lease”). Erik Decl., ¶2. Tenant then spent three years and $5 million to restore the Premises with a variety of air conditioning, audio-visual, lighting, and sound equipment. Erik Decl., ¶2, Exs. A-B. The Premises became a multi-purpose venue for Church service, corporate events, fundraising, concerts, fashion shows, social events, film premieres, weddings, and conferences. Erik Decl., ¶2, Ex. B.

On September 5, 2023, Landlord applied for a writ of execution, possession, or sale of the Premises pursuant to an unlawful detainer judgment on August 29, 2023. Erik Decl., ¶14, Ex. E. The daily rental value of the Premises was listed as $1,207.50. Erik Decl., ¶14, Ex. E.

On November 11, 2023, Tenant received notice of eviction from the Premises without any notice of vacating Belongings. Erik Decl., ¶3, Ex. G (“Soussan Decl., ¶3”); Florence Decl., ¶2. The Irreplaceable Belongings include (1) the Marquee Letters, whose manufacturer is no longer in business; (2) the GLOBE Vintage Letters, (since the manufacturer who made them is no longer in business); (3) specially ordered and handcrafted Chandeliers and Sconces; and (4) Tenants’ Business Records like employees’ checks and tips. Erik Decl., ¶5; Florence Decl., ¶7. The manufacturers of the Marquee and GLOBE Vintage Letters are no longer in business. Erik Decl., ¶5; Florence Decl., ¶7.

The Additional Belongings consist of 50 types of items with a combined value of $1,297,810. Erik Decl., ¶6. Among these are five HVAC compressors with a combined value of $48,000. Erik Decl., ¶6. The Additional Belongings also include $32,000 in liquor and beverage inventory from all bar areas and storage. Erik Decl., ¶6. Other Additional Belongings include six bubble machines and 32 video cameras. Erik Decl., ¶17.

On November 14, 2023, Tenant and Landlord’s manager, Sarshar, reached an oral agreement that gave Tenant until December 13, 2023 to remove its Belongings. Erik Decl., ¶4; Florence Decl., ¶3. During this period and through mid-December, there also were negotiations for the tenancy to continue. Erik Decl., ¶4.

On November 27, 2023, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) filed a Return on Attachment stating that it had placed the Premises in Landlord’s peaceful possession. Erik Decl., ¶15, Ex. F. November 27 was the first day LASD posted a Notice of Eviction on the Premises. Erik Decl., ¶7; Florence Decl., ¶4.

Also on November 27, 2023, at 7:00 a.m., Landlord changed the lock to the Premises and brought a security guard with a dog to the Premises. Erik Decl., ¶7; Florence Decl., ¶4. This lockout prevented Tenant from retrieving the Belongings per the parties’ oral agreement. Erik Decl., ¶7. Tenant could not return third-party belongings like employees’ paychecks and tips, suppliers’ rental equipment, and cleaning staff supplies and machines to their rightful owners. Erik Decl., ¶7. Tenant also became concerned that it could not continue operations at another venue without the Belongings. Erik Decl., ¶7.

On December 4, 2023, between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., the parties and their counsel met at the Premises to take inventory of Belongings. Erik Decl., ¶7. Sarshar confirmed the previous oral agreement. Erik Decl., ¶7. The only items in dispute were five movable HVAC compressors. Erik Decl., ¶7. The parties reached a new oral agreement whereby Landlord could keep the compressors in exchange for no storage fees for the Belongings, which Landlord would return to Tenant. Erik Decl., ¶7; Florence Decl., ¶8.

Later that day, Landlord sent Tenant an Access Agreement which deviated significantly from the oral agreement. Erik Decl., ¶7. It provided for a $28,000 storage fee plus $2,000 per day thereafter, $500 of which was for Landlord’s daily security. Erik Decl., ¶7. Landlord also sought to keep the HVAC compressors that were supposed to serve as substitute payment for the storage fees under the oral agreement. Erik Decl., ¶7. Landlord also sought indefinite dominion and control of Belongings nailed to the wall, even though Civil Code section 1019 permits their removal when it would not injure the Premises. Erik Decl., ¶7.

Since then, Tenant’s repeated requests to access the Premises to retrieve the Belongings have been denied. Erik Decl., ¶8. Tenant’s damages include daily rental charges of $2,575 since November 27, 2023 for failure to return sound equipment rentals. Erik Decl., ¶8, Ex. C.

Tenant has also suffered irreparable harm to reputation and business relationships after a decade spent building them. Erik Decl., ¶8. Tenant cannot file its 2023 corporate taxes without access to the business records among the Irreplaceable Belongings. Florence Decl., ¶6. Tenant cannot tell suppliers when their property will be returned, employees when they will be paid, or cleaning personnel when they can retrieve their supplies and machines. Erik Decl., ¶8. Its inability to generate income has compelled Tenant to terminate its 70 employees. Erik Decl., ¶9.

On January 22, 2024, Tenant received a “Second Notice of Right to Reclaim Abandoned Property” (“Second Notice”), but it never received a first notice. Erik Decl., ¶14, Ex. D. The Second Notice threatened to dispose of the Belongings under Civil Code section 1993.03 unless Tenant paid the reasonable cost of storage and took possession by February 6, 2024. Erik Decl., ¶14, Ex. D. Landlord listed the daily storage costs as $2,000, which was greater than the daily rental value listed on the September writ of possession. Erik Decl., ¶14, Ex. D.

The failure to take care of the Premises in a reasonable manner poses a significant threat to the Belongings. Erik Decl., ¶18. Delicate items among the Belongings require exacting conditions for preservation, including temperature and humidity control, to avoid deterioration. Erik Decl., ¶18.

Under the Lease, a Utility Installation is any floor or window covering, air or vacuum line, power panel, electrical distribution, security and fire protection system, communication cabling, lighting fixture, HVAC equipment, plumbing, or fencing in or around the Premises. Sarshar Decl., ¶22(5), Ex. F, §7.3(a). The Utility Installations would include the HVAC compressors, chandeliers, sconces, ceiling lights, security cameras, and Marquee Letters (collectively “Excluded Belongings”). Sarshar Decl., ¶22(5).

A Trade Fixture is any machinery or equipment that could be removed without material damage to the Premises. Sarshar Decl., Ex. F, §7.3(a). An Alteration is any modification or improvement other than a Utility Installation or Trade Fixture. Sarshar Decl., Ex. F, §7.3(a).

The Lease states that all Alterations and Utility Installations the Tenant made would be the property of the Tenant but considered part of the Premises. Sarshar Decl., Ex. F, §7.4(a). At the expiration or termination of the Lease, they become part of Landlord’s property and shall be surrendered with the Premises. Sarshar Decl., Ex. F, §7.4(a).

Trade Fixtures remain Tenant property. Sarshar Decl., Ex. F, §7.4(c). However, if Tenant failed to remove any personal property upon termination of the Lease, it shall be deemed abandoned and either disposed of or retained as Landlord so chose. Sarshar Decl., Ex. F, §7.4(c).

The Landlord filed the UD Action. Sarshar Decl., ¶3. On April 7, 2022, after Tenant filed an answer, the parties entered a Settlement Agreement and Release Agreement (“Settlement”). Sarshar Decl., ¶3. The Settlement resolved the UD Action and a separate civil action, Chol Enterprises, Inc. v. 740 Broadway Associates, LLC, et al., Case No. 21STCV39031 (“Chol v. 740 Broadway I”). Sarshar Decl., ¶4.

Tenant breached the Settlement. Sarshar Decl., ¶5. On August 29, 2023, judgment in the UD Action awarded Landlord possession of the Premises and $100,000 for past-due rent, holdover damages, and attorneys’ fees. Sarshar Decl., ¶5, Ex. A.

Landlord instructed LASD to execute the judgment for possession. Sarshar Decl., ¶6.

On November 27, 2023, LASD posted a Notice of Eviction on the Premises. Sarshar Decl., ¶10, Ex. C. The Notice of Eviction advised Tenant that any property left on the Premises was now under Landlord’s legal control. Sarshar Decl., ¶10, Ex. C. A part of the Notice of Eviction referred to a Notice to Vacate delivered to Tenant which described the legal procedures for recovery of this property. Sarshar Decl., ¶10, Ex. C. Tenant did not reclaim the Belongings within two days of the Notice of Eviction. Sarshar Decl., ¶21.

Landlord hired the security guard because Tenant is very litigious and it was concerned that Tenant would sue Landlord if any of the Belongings became missing or damaged while on the Premises. Sarshar Decl., ¶12. Between November 27, 2023 and January 28, 2024, Landlord paid $25,250 for the security guard, at a $500 daily rate through January 5, 2024 and a $250 daily rate thereafter. Sarshar Decl., ¶12, Ex. D.

The parties never reached the November oral agreement described by Tenant. Sarshar Decl., ¶¶ 17, 19. To argue that Landlord would allow Tenant to enter the Premises after eviction and remove property until December 13, 2023 strains credulity. Sarshar Decl., ¶16. At one point, the parties did enter negotiations about the removal of certain personal property and payment of storage costs but never reached an agreement because Tenant insisted on removing Trade Fixtures and refused to pay storage costs. Sarshar Decl., ¶18. There was never an oral agreement to allow Tenant to retrieve personal property without paying storage costs. Sarshar Decl., ¶19.

On January 2, 2024, Landlord recorded a Notice of Lien on the Premises (“Lien”) with the California Secretary of State based on the judgment in the UD Action. Sarshar Decl., ¶7, Ex. B. The amount to satisfy this judgment is $100,000. Sarshar Decl., ¶7, Ex. B.

To date, Tenant has failed to tender either storage costs for the Belongings and has not paid the $100,000 judgment in the UD Action. Sarshar Decl., ¶¶ 8-9. Landlord believes that Tenant has overstated the inventory of Belongings to justify another lawsuit against Landlord. Sarshar Decl., ¶14.

The fair rental value of the Premises is $1,207.00 per day from November 27, 2023 through February 6, 2024, or $82,110. Sarshar Decl., ¶20. This does not include the $28,500 in costs for a security guard, at a daily average of $419. Sarshar Decl., ¶20.

Landlord is entitled to (1) $82,110 in storage costs through February 6, 2024, plus $2,000 per day thereafter; (2) $28,500 for costs of hiring the security guard, plus costs incurred after February 6, 2024; (3) $100,000 to satisfy the Lien; (4) a bond from surety for $250,000 for damages to the Premises proximately caused by removal of any of the Belongings, per Civil Code section 1013.5, plus workers’ compensation insurance to cover the removal of the Belongings; and (5) retention of the Excluded Belongings as Utility Installations under the Lease, free from any Tenant claim. Sarshar Decl., ¶22. Based on Tenant’s’ valuation of the Belongings, Landlord is also entitled to a $1,297,810 bond providing that the sureties are bound to the Landlord for the return of any removed property. Sarshar Decl., ¶22(6).

On April 7, 2022, the parties entered a stipulation in connection with the Settlement in the UD Action. Bearman Decl., ¶2, Ex. A. The stipulation explained that the action could be dismissed without prejudice, but the court would retain jurisdiction under CCP section 664.6 for purposes of enforcement of the Settlement. Bearman Decl., ¶2, Ex. A. The parties could also apply to the court for any further orders and directions needed to construe, implement, or enforce the Settlement. Bearman Decl., ¶2, Ex. A.

Plaintiff Tenant seeks a writ of possession against Landlord for all Belongings.

Landlord electronically served the opposition to this application on February 21, 2024. An opposition to a law and motion must be filed within nine court days of the hearing on the motion. CCP §1005(b). Any period of notice is extended after service by electronic means by two court days. CCP §1010.6(a)(3)(B). Because electronic service was only nine court days before the hearing, Tenant asks the court to not consider Landlord’s opposition. Reply at 4. The opposition is untimely. Because Tenant filed a reply addressing the opposition, it has not been prejudiced. The court will consider the opposition.

At the February 8, 2024 ex parte hearing, the court stated that Tenant’s application for a writ of possession may belong in the UD Action. Tenant was ordered to file a notice of related case in the UD Action. The court has reviewed the court file in the UD Action and Tenant failed to comply with its order. Landlord also objects that Tenant’s claim should be addressed in the UD Action. Opp. at 4.

Tenant’s failure to obey the court’s oder is a basis to deny Tenant’s application. As the court is uncertain whether the application necessarily belongs in the UD Action, the court will consider the application’s merits.

On August 29, 2023, judgment in the UD Action awarded Landlord possession of the Premises and $100,000 for past-due rent, holdover damages, and attorneys’ fees. Sarshar Decl., ¶5, Ex. A. On November 11, 2023, Tenant received the Notice of Eviction from the Premises without any Notice to Vacate the Belongings. Erik Decl., ¶3, Ex. G (“Soussan Decl., ¶3”); Florence Decl., ¶2.

Tenant asserts that the parties then made two oral agreements breached by Landlord breached. On November 14, 2023, Tenant and Landlord’s manager, Sarshar, reached an oral agreement that Tenant would have until December 13, 2023 to remove its Belongings from the Premises. Erik Decl., ¶4; Florence Decl., ¶3. On November 27, 2023, after LASD placed the Premises in Landlord’s possession, Landlord changed the lock and brought a security guard with a dog to the Premises. Erik Decl., ¶7; Florence Decl., ¶4. This prevented Tenant from retrieving the Belongings per the oral agreement. Erik Decl., ¶7.

Tenant then asserts that on December 4, 2023, between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., the parties and counsel met at the Premises to take inventory of the Belongings. Erik Decl., ¶7. They reached another oral agreement whereby Landlord could keep the compressors in exchange for no storage fees for the Belongings, which Landlord would return to Tenant. Erik Decl., ¶7.

Landlord reneged on the oral agreement that evening when it sent Tenant an Access Agreement which provided for a $28,000 storage fee plus $2,000 per day thereafter, $500 of which for Landlord’s daily security costs. Erik Decl., ¶7. The Access Agreement also provided that Landlord would keep the HVAC Compressors that were supposed to serve as substitute payment for storage fees. Erik Decl., ¶7.

Landlord denies that the parties entered into any oral agreement. Sarshar Decl., ¶¶ 17, 19. To argue that, after the November 27, 2023 eviction, Landlord would give Tenant leave until December 13, 2023 to enter the Premises and remove Belongings strains credulity. Sarshar Decl., ¶16. The parties did enter into negotiations for the removal of certain personal property and payment of storage costs, but never reached an agreement, in part because Tenant refused to pay storage costs. Sarshar Decl., ¶18. There was never an oral agreement to allow Tenant to retrieve personal property without paying storage costs. Sarshar Decl., ¶19.

No documentary evidence supports Tenant’s position that the parties entered into either oral agreement and the unsigned Access Agreement supports Landlord’s position that there was no such agreement. The court does not necessarily accept Landlord’s argument that it would not enter into an agreement permitting Tenant until December 13 to remove the Belongings merely because it evicted Tenant on November 27. Landlords often want to get rid of tenant property after eviction and enter into such agreements to avoid the hassle of dealing with it. Here, however, Landlord also has a $100,000 money judgment against Tenant and therefore has an interest in recovering both storage fees and disposal of the Belongings to satisfy this judgment. This circumstance makes it less likely that Landlord would have entered into the oral agreement described by Tenant.

Ultimately, the court cannot resolve the issue of the two oral agreements on this application. That is a matter for trial in which witness credibility can be better assessed. Therefore, Tenant has not satisfied its burden for this application to show the oral agreements. The question becomes whether Tenant is entitled to return of the Belongings in the absence of any agreement.

The Lease states that all Alterations and Utility Installations made by Tenant would be the property of the Tenant but considered part of the Premises. Sarshar Decl., Ex. F, §7.4(a). At the expiration or termination of the Lease, they would become Landlord’s property and be surrendered along with the Premises. Sarshar Decl., Ex. F, §7.4(a). Under the Lease, a “Utility Installation” is any floor or window covering, air or vacuum line, power panel, electrical distribution, security and fire protection system, communication cabling, lighting fixture, HVAC equipment, plumbing, or fencing in or around the Premises. Sarshar Decl., ¶22(5), Ex. F, §7.3(a).

The list of Irreplaceable Belongings includes Marquee Letters, handcrafted Chandeliers, and handcrafted Sconces. Erik Decl., ¶5; Florence Decl., ¶7. The Additional Belongings include five HVAC compressors. Erik Decl., ¶6. Landlord asserts that these Belongings, together with security cameras and ceiling lights, are Excluded Belongings that Tenant cannot repossess. Sarshar Decl., ¶22(5).

It is unclear whether the 32 video cameras included in the Additional Belongings (Erik Decl., ¶6) are security cameras. In any case, the court agrees that HVAC compressors, Marquee Letters, handcrafted Chandeliers, and handcrafted Sconces are Utility Installations under the Lease. Sarshar Decl., ¶22(5), Ex. F, §7.3(a). Tenant relinquished ownership thereof to Landlord when the Lease terminated via the Notice of Eviction. Sarshar Decl., Ex. F, §7.4(a); Soussan Decl., ¶3; Sarshar Decl., ¶10, Ex. C.

Upon judgment for repossession of premises from a tenant, the landlord shall release the personal property to the tenant if the tenant pays the costs of storage and claims the property not later than the date specified in the writ of possession. CCP §1174(h). If the landlord stores the personal property on the premises, the cost of storage is the fair rental value of the space reasonably required for that storage for the term of the storage. Civil Code §1990(c). Costs shall not be assessed if the former tenant reclaims property stored on the premises within two days of having vacated the premises. Id.

A writ of possession for real property shall include, inter alia, a statement that any personal property on the property after the judgment creditor has been placed in possession will be sold or otherwise disposed of, in accordance with CCP section 1174, unless the judgment debtor or other owner pays the judgment creditor the reasonable cost of storage and takes possession of the personal property not later than 15 days after the time the judgment creditor takes possession of the real property. CCP §715.010(b)(3).

The Lease states that any Tenant property left on the Premises upon termination of the Lease will be deemed abandoned and either disposed of or retained as Landlord chooses. Sarshar Decl., Ex. F, §7.4(c). Tenant admits that it received a notice of eviction from the Premises on November 11, 2023. Erik Decl., ¶3, Ex. G (“Soussan Decl., ¶3”). Tenant was not locked out until November 27, 2023. Erik Decl., ¶7; Florence Decl., ¶4. Under the Lease, Tenant abandoned the Belongings still inside the Premises for failure to remove them after receiving more than two weeks of notice.

Although not addressed by the parties, the court will assume that the Lease does not govern over landlord-tenant statutory requirements. Therefore, Tenant as not abandoned the Belongings. Landlord asserts that LASD’s Notice of Eviction, posted on November 27, 2023, warned Tenant to remove its personal property or pay storage costs. Opp. at 5. The Notice of Eviction does not so state. Reply at 6. Rather, it advised Tenant that any property left on the Premises was now under Landlord’s legal control. Sarshar Decl., ¶10, Ex. C. The Notice of Eviction also states that Tenant previously received a Notice to Vacate describing the legal procedures for recovery of this property. Sarshar Decl., ¶10, Ex. C. Tenant denies receiving a Notice to Vacate. Reply at 6.

On January 22, 2024, Landlord sent the Second Notice demanding that Tenant pay daily storage costs of $2,000. Erik Decl., ¶14, Ex. D. If Tenant failed to do so by February 6, Landlord threatened to dispose of the Belongings under Civil Code section 1993.03. Erik Decl., ¶14, Ex. D.

Tenant argues that Landlord acted in bad faith by not delivering the notice required under CCP section 715.010(b)(3) until January 22, almost two months after it repossessed the Premises. Reply at 7. Tenant asks that Landlord be estopped from enforcing storage fees beyond the first 15 days. Reply at 3. Because the September writ of possession lists the Premises’ daily rent as $1,207.50 (Erik Decl., ¶14, Ex. E), this equals $1,207.50 x 15 = $18,112.50. Reply at 3.

Tenant’s argument misinterprets the protections available under CCP section 715.010(b)(3). The required notice must give the tenant 15 days to pay storage fees before the personal property is “sold or otherwise disposed of.” CCP §715.010(b)(3). Landlord did not threaten to sell or dispose of the Belongings until January 22, 2024. Erik Decl., ¶14, Ex. D. As long as Landlord does not sell or dispose of the Belongings before the 15-day period ends, it is entitled to collect storage fees under CCP section 1174(h). Even if, arguendo, Landlord should be estopped from asserting fees greater than $18,112.50, Tenant would not be entitled to a writ of possession because it has never tendered this amount. Tenant’s offer to pay this amount in reply is insufficient. Reply at 3.

Finally, Landlord has a $100,000 judgment lien on the Belongings. Sarshar Decl., Exs. A-B. CCP section 697.510 permits a judgment lien on personal property described in CCP section 697.530 by filing a notice of judgment lien with the Secretary of State. In turn, CCP section 697.530 provides that a judgment lien on personal property is a lien on all interests in personal property that is subject to enforcement of a money judgment. Landlord argues that this lien has priority over any Tenant claim for possession of the Belongings. Opp. at 8.

Tenant only replies that the judgment lien was created on January 2, 2024, and Landlord performed an unauthorized attachment of the Belongings on November 27, 2023 by locking Tenant out. Moreover, an attachment of the Belongings valued at $1.2 million is unjust for a judgment lien of only $100,000. Reply at 5.

The timing of the judgment lien is relevant only to Tenant’s damages for wrongful retention of the Belongings. That is, if Tenant is entitled to damages from Landlord’s wrongful detention of the Belongings, that does not affect the fact that the judgment lien exists now and Landlord is entitled to satisfy it from the Belongings. That the Belongings may have a much greater value than the $100,000 lien does not prevent Landlord from holding the Belongings until this lien is satisfied or until there is a court order permitting the return to Tenant of some, but not all, of the Belongings. As a result, Tenant is not entitled to possession of the Belongings.

Although it may prevail at trial, Tenant has failed to demonstrate in this application it is entitled to possession of the Belongings. The application for a writ of possession is denied.

[1] Landlord failed to lodge a courtesy copy of its opposition, and Tenant the reply, in violation of the Presiding Judge’s First Amended General Order Re: Mandatory Electronic Filing. Both counsel are admonished to provide courtesy copies in all future filings for this case or they will not be considered.

[2] If the court denies the plaintiff’s application for a writ of possession, any TRO must be dissolved. CCP §513.010(c).

[3] Landlord’s written evidentiary objection to paragraph 4 of the Declaration of Gerard Soussan is sustained.