Judge Joel L. Lofton, Case 22AHCV00740 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00740, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00740 Hearing Date: February 28, 2023 Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE: February 28, 2023 TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE: TD BANK N.A., a national association, v. TIGRAN MARTIROSIAN, an individual; STERLING AUTO COLLISION CENTER, INC., a corporation; RUEBEN AVETISYAN, individually and dba STERLING AUTO COLLISION CENTER; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, a California governmental agency; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.

CASE NO.: 22AHCV00740

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff TD Bank N.A.

RESPONDING PARTY: No response filed.

SERVICE: Filed November 4, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff files an application for writ of possession for a 2015 Chevrolet Corvette with Vehicle Identification No. 1G1YB2D75F5103838.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from Plaintiff TD Bank N.A’s (“Plaintiff”) claim and delivery case for a 2015 Chevrolet Corvette with Vehicle Identification No. 1G1YB2D75F5103838 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that it was assigned the contract of the Subject Vehicle and is the legal owner of the Subject Vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Tigran Martirosian (“Martirosian”) failed to make regular monthly payments of $698.73 and owes a total sum of $47,210.64. Plaintiff alleges Martirosian transferred the subject vehicle to Defendants Ruben Avetisyan and Sterling Auto Collision Center (collectively “Body Shop Defendants”).

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s application for writ of possession is continued until Plaintiff has provided it has served Martirosian with the required documents.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this chapter for a writ of possession by filing a written application for the writ with the court in which the action is brought.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 512.010, subd. (a).)

“The application shall be executed under oath and shall include all of the following: [¶] (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 basis of the plaintiff’s claim is a written instrument, a copy of the instrument shall be attached. [¶] (2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention. [¶] (3) A particular description of the property and a statement of its value. [¶] (4) A statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the location of the property and, if the property, or some part of it, is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, a showing that there is probable cause to believe that such property is located there. [¶] (5) A statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute; or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff; or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 512.010, subd. (b).)

“Prior to the hearing required by subdivision (a) of Section 512.020, the defendant shall be served with all of the following: [¶] (1) A copy of the summons and complaint. [¶] (2) A Notice of Application and Hearing. [¶] (3) A copy of the application and any affidavit in support thereof.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 512.030, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 512.010

Plaintiff provides that the basis of its claim is the sales contract owned by Plaintiff for the Subject Vehicle. (Martinez Decl. ¶ 7, Exhibit A.) Plaintiff provides that pursuant to the contract, upon default, Plaintiff has the right to immediate possession. (Ibid.) Plaintiff provides that it is the lienholder for the subject vehicle through TD Auto Fin. LLC. (Id. ¶ 7, Exhibit B.) Plaintiff provides that Martirosian failed to make payments under the contract and owes $47,210.64 on the contract and improperly transferred the Subject Vehicle to the Body Shop Defendants, causing a large lien to be placed on the subject vehicle. (Id ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff provides that prior to the commencement of this action, Martirosian transferred the subject vehicle to the Body Shop Defendants, accruing labor, towing, and storage fees of more than $15,000. (Martinez Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff provides that the wholesale value of the Subject Vehicle is $31,725.00 and the retail value is $38,950.00. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff provides that to the best of its knowledge, the Subject Vehicle is at Martirosian’s residence at 508 ½ N. 3^rd Street, Montebello, CA 90640 or the Body Shop Defendant’s principal place of business at 11050 Woodley Avenue Unit A, Granada Hills, CA 91344. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff also provides that the Subject Vehicle has not been taken for a tax, assessment, fine, or seized under execution against Plaintiff’s property. (Application ¶ 8.)

Service Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 512.030

Plaintiff filed a proof of personal service declaring that it personally served Sterling Auto Collision Center, Inc. on December 1, 2022, with a copy of the summons, complaint, notice of application for writ of possession and hearing, and the application for writ of possession. Plaintiff provides it served Ruben Avetisyan by substituted service on January 15, 2023, with the same documents.

While Plaintiff has submitted proofs of services for the Body Shop Defendants, it has not done so for Martirosian.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s application for writ of possession is continued until Plaintiff has provided it has served Martirosian with the required documents.

Dated: February 28, 2023 ___________________________________

Joel L. Lofton

Judge of the Superior Court