Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21BBCV00784, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00784    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations of the Operative Complaint

            Plaintiffs Porsche Leasing Ltd. and Porsche Financial Services, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on February 23, 2021, Defendant Zhanet Dilanchyan (“Defendant”) entered into the California Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement with Beverly Hills Porsche for the lease of a new 2021 Porsche Cayenne.  Pursuant to the agreement, Defendant was to make 42 consecutive monthly payments of $1,511 commencing on February 23, 2021.  On February 23, 2021, Beverly Hills Porsche assigned its rights, title, and interest in the vehicle to Porsche Leasing Ltd., who thereafter provided it to Porsche Financial Services, Inc. for servicing.  Plaintiffs allege that on May 24, 2021, Defendant defaulted on the agreement by failing to make payments when due.  As of the date of the complaint, the total amount due and owing was $101,164.28, plus additional charges pursuant to the agreement and 105% interest from May 24, 2021 until paid in full.

            The complaint, filed September 2, 2021, alleges causes of action for: (1) possession of personal property; (2) deficiency judgment; (3) foreclosure of security interest with deficiency judgment; (4) breach of express written contract; (5) money lent; and (6) account stated.  

B.     Relevant Background

On October 7, 2021, the default of Defendant was entered.

On March 15, 2022, the default judgment of Defendant was entered in the amount of $108,446.71. 

On March 23, 2022, a Writ of Execution (money judgment) and possession was issued against Defendant.

C.     Motion on Calendar  

On October 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed an application for order to seize property in a private place pursuant to CCP § 699.030. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

            CCP § 699.030 states:

If personal property sought to be levied upon is located in a private place of the judgment debtor:

(a) The levying officer making the levy shall demand delivery of the property by the judgment debtor and shall advise the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor may be liable for costs and attorney's fees incurred in any further proceedings to obtain delivery of the property. If the judgment debtor does not deliver the property, the levying officer shall make no further effort to obtain custody of the property and shall promptly notify the judgment creditor of the failure to obtain custody of the property.

(b) The judgment creditor may apply to the court ex parte, or on noticed motion if the court so directs or a court rule so requires, for an order directing the levying officer to seize the property in the private place. The application may be made whether or not a writ has been issued and whether or not demand has been made pursuant to subdivision (a). The application for the order shall describe with particularity both the property sought to be levied upon, and the place where it is to be found, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the judgment creditor. The court may not issue the order unless the judgment creditor establishes that there is probable cause to believe that property sought to be levied upon is located in the place described. The levying officer making the levy, at the time delivery of the property pursuant to the order is demanded, shall announce his or her identity, purpose, and authority. If the property is not voluntarily delivered, the levying officer may cause the building or enclosure where the property is believed to be located to be broken open in such manner as the levying officer reasonably believes will cause the least damage, but if the levying officer reasonably believes that entry and seizure of the property will involve a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm to any person, the levying officer shall refrain from entering and shall promptly make a return to the court setting forth the reasons for believing that the risk exists. In such a case, the court shall make such orders as may be appropriate.

(CCP § 699.030.) 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiffs move for an order to seize the 2021 Porsche Cayenne vehicle from Defendant. 

            Plaintiffs’ counsel, Stacey A. Miller, states that Porsche Financial Services, Inc. (“PFS”) instructed the Los Angeles County Sheriff to levy the vehicle from Defendant at 10349 Siesta Drive, Shadow Hills, CA 91040, but the Sheriff was unable to locate the vehicle, no answer was given at the front gate of the Siesta address, and the Sheriff observed multiple cameras facing the front of the property.  (Miller Decl., ¶6, Ex. B [Sheriff’s Notice of Not Found/No Service].)  On July 21, 2022 and again on September 21, 2022, PFS conducted a new person location search through Lexis Nexis and found that the Siesta address remained Defendant’s current address.  (Id., ¶7.)  Counsel states that satellite and street view images from Google Maps revealed that the vehicle may be easily concealed at the property or within a garage behind a locked gate.  (Id., ¶7, Ex. C [Google Map images].)  On March 30, 2022, PFS instructed the Los Angeles County Sheriff to levy the vehicle from Defendant at the Siesta address.  (Id., ¶8.)  On May 31, 2022, counsel received notice from the Sheriff that 3 attempts had been made to locate the vehicle, but each time there was no answer at the gate.  (Id., ¶9, Ex. B.)  Counsel is informed and believes that PFS and/or its agents have repeatedly contacted Defendant and demanded the vehicle and that Defendant has repeatedly refused to turn over the vehicle to PFS or its agents.  (Id., ¶¶10-11.)

            The Court finds that Plaintiff has established probable cause to believe that the vehicle sought to be levied upon is located at the Siesta address.  Plaintiffs argue that Defendant was personally served at 10349 Siesta Drive, Shadow Hills, CA 91040 on September 5, 2021.  (Miller Decl., ¶3.)  This is also the address listed on the California Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement.  (Mot., Ex. A.) 

            As such, the application to seize property in a private place is granted. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s application for an order to seize property in a private place is granted.  The property is identified as a 2021 Porsche Cayenne, Vehicle Identification Number WP1BB2AY5MDA46343.  The subject location of the private place is 10349 Siesta Drive, Shadow Hills, CA 91040.  Pursuant to CCP § 699.030(b), the “levying officer making the levy, at the time delivery of the property pursuant to the order is demanded, shall announce his or her identity, purpose, and authority. If the property is not voluntarily delivered, the levying officer may cause the building or enclosure where the property is believed to be located to be broken open in such manner as the levying officer reasonably believes will cause the least damage, but if the levying officer reasonably believes that entry and seizure of the property will involve a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm to any person, the levying officer shall refrain from entering and shall promptly make a return to the court setting forth the reasons for believing that the risk exists. In such a case, the court shall make such orders as may be appropriate.”

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.