Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00468, Date: 2023-05-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00468    Hearing Date: May 26, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants Naira Piliposyan and Sargis P. Piliposyan (“Piliposyan Defendants”) entered into a Closed-End Motor Vehicle Agreement on September 4, 2020 whereby Defendants leased a 2020 Maserati-Levante.  (FAC, ¶5, Ex. A.)  Plaintiff alleges that agreement contemplated 48 monthly payments of $1,069.34 from September 4, 2020 until paid in full.  Plaintiff alleges that Piliposyan Defendants failed to make the monthly payment due on November 4, 2021, such that there is an unpaid balance of $59,424.90 due and payable to Plaintiff from Piliposyan Defendants.  Plaintiff alleges it has demanded possession of the vehicle, but Piliposyan Defendants have not surrendered it. 

Plaintiff is informed and believes that on January 18, 2023, Piliposyan Defendants brought the vehicle to Defendant SM Auto Collision Center (“SMACC”) for the purpose of making certain repairs and modifications to the vehicle without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.  Plaintiff alleges it received a notice from SMACC on March 1, 2023, indicating the vehicle was being stored at SMACC and the amount of repair and storage costs. 

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed March 20, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) possession of personal property; and (2) declaratory and injunctive relief.

B.     Relevant Background

On March 29, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for temporary restraining order, which the Court stated would remain in full force and effect until April 28, 2023.  Pursuant to the TRO, Defendant SM Auto Collision Center is restrained from transferring any interest by sale, pledge, or grant of security interest, or otherwise disposing of, or encumbering the vehicle; concealing or otherwise removing the vehicle in such a manner as to make it less available to seizure by the levying officer; impairing the vehicle of the vehicle; an d disposing of the proceeds from the transfer of any interest in the vehicle. 

C.     Application for Writ of Possession

On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the application for writ of possession against Defendant SM Auto Collision Center only. On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the declaration of Deborah Kirsling. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

A.    Proof of Service

The Court is not in receipt of a proof of service of the summons, complaint, and application documents on Defendant SMACC.

The Court has reviewed the documents filed in this case.  The Court is in receipt of the proofs of substituted service of Naira Piliposyan and Sargis P Piliposyan, but not of SMACC. 

            As such, the Court will continue the hearing on the application so that Plaintiff has sufficient time to serve SMACC with the summons, complaint, and application papers.

B.     Application Papers

To avoid further delay in this action, the Court will address a minor point in the submitted application papers.

The Court notes that in support of its application, Plaintiff provides the declaration of its counsel Elizabeth Aronson.  Ms. Aronson states that she is counsel for Plaintiff and has computer records regarding this matter.  The Court notes that Ms. Aronson is not Plaintiff’s in-house counsel, but rather Plaintiff’s retained counsel for the purpose of this litigation.  Ms. Aronson’s declaration states without any documentary or evidentiary support that Plaintiff estimates the fair market value of the vehicle to be $49,830.  (Aronson Decl., ¶14.)  Ms. Aronson has not stated how this evaluation was made, how Plaintiff made the estimate, whether she is an expert in making estimated fair market valuations of vehicles, or any documentary evidence (such as the Kelley Blue Book) to support her evaluation.  While Plaintiff has provided the declaration of Deborah Kirsling, an employee of Plaintiff, in support of the application (filed on May 15, 2022), Ms. Kirsling’s declaration fails to discuss the fair market value of the subject vehicle. As such, a supplemental declaration should be filed to inform the parties and the Court the fair market value of the subject vehicle.  This is relevant for the purpose of whether an undertaking is appropriate.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s application for a writ of possession is continued to July 28, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in order to provide Plaintiff sufficient time to file a proof of service of the summons, complaint, and application documents on Defendant SM Auto Collision Center.  Further, as noted above, Plaintiff should file a supplemental declaration of an individual who can provide an estimate on the fair market value of the subject vehicle (and/or documentary support thereof) for the purposes of evaluating whether an undertaking is appropriate.  

            The temporary restraining order that was placed in effect on March 29, 2023 shall be extended to July 28, 2023, which is the date of the continued hearing on this application. 

            Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order.