Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02980, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02980    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations of the Complaint

Plaintiff Channel Partners Capital, LLC d/b/a Channel Partners Equipment Finance (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on September 2, 2022, Defendant Shane Weber, individual, dba Weber Enterprise (“Weber Enterprise”) entered into a written Master Equipment Finance Agreement No. MA-05402 with Plaintiff pursuant to which Plaintiff agreed to finance Weber Enterprise’s purchase of certain commercial equipment from a vendor selected by Weber Enterprise.  Plaintiff alleges that Weber Enterprise defaulted on the agreement by failing to make payment, which was due by April 5, 2023 and all subsequent payments.  Plaintiff alleges that the accelerated balance under the agreement is $106,371.85, plus interest at 18% per annum from April 5, 2023.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Shane Weber (“Mr. Weber”) executed and delivered to Plaintiff a guaranty to induce Plaintiff to enter the agreement. 

 The complaint, filed December 15, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of guaranty; (3) recovery of personal property; (4) conversion; and (5) common count (money lent).

B.     Relevant Background and Application for Writ of Attachment  

On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the application for writ of possession against Defendants Weber Enterprise and Mr. Weber. 

On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed proofs of substituted service of the summons, complaint, and application documents on Defendants Weber Enterprise and Mr. Weber showing that they were each served on January 25, 2024. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

The matter initially came for hearing on March 29, 2024.  The Court continued the hearing to April 12, 2024 in order to provide Plaintiff time to file a supplemental declaration by the end of the business day on April 5, 2024 regarding the estimated valuation of the subject trailers. 

On April 5, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice Does 1-20 only and the 4^th and 5^th causes of action.

On April 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a declaration pursuant to CCP § 585 in support of default judgment. 

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 512.010 requires that the application for writ of possession be executed under oath and include affidavits showing 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.

(CCP § 512.010(b).)

CCP § 512.060 permits the Court to issue a writ of possession when the Court finds the following:

(1)   The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the plaintiff's claim to possession of the property.

(2)   The undertaking requirements of CCP § 515.010 are satisfied.

(CCP § 512.060.)

DISCUSSION

A.    Probable Validity of Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff filed an application for writ of possession against Defendants Weber Enterprise and Mr. Weber.  The claimed property includes: (1) 1 Trailer – ACE – ABD111 – 2023 VIN#1A9ASD114PF896053; and (2) 1 Trailer – ACE – ABD111 – 2023 VIN#1A9AFD12XPF896054.  (App., § 4.) 

“The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are: “(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom. [Citation.]”  (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.) 

In support of the application, Plaintiff provides the declaration of Traci Serreyn, who is employed by Plaintiff as a Litigation and Recovery Specialist.  (Serreyn Decl., ¶1.)  Ms. Serreyn states that she is the custodian of records.  (Id.)  Ms. Serreyn states that on September 2, 2022, Weber Enterprise entered into a written Master Equipment Finance Agreement No. MA-05402 (“Agreement”) with Plaintiff pursuant to which Plaintiff agreed to finance Weber Enterprise’s purchase of the two trailers.  (Id., ¶2.)  As consideration, Weber Enterprise obligated itself to make certain specified monthly payments to Plaintiff.  (Id., ¶3.)  Plaintiff is the holder of the Agreement and performed its obligations.  (Id., ¶4.)  Weber Enterprise defaulted on the Agreement by failing to may payments due on April 5, 2023 and thereafter.  (Id., ¶5.)  As a result of Weber Enterprise’s default, Plaintiff terminated the Agreement, thus terminating Weber Enterprise’s right to possession of the trailers.  (Id., ¶6, Ex. 1 [Demand Letters to Weber Enterprise and Mr. Weber], Ex. 2 [Certificate of Title].)  Ms. Serreyn states that despite Plaintiff’s repeated demands, Weber Enterprise has failed and refused to release the trailers to Plaintiff.  (Id., ¶8.) 

Ms. Serreyn’s declaration provides evidence to establish the probable validity of Plaintiff’s claim to possession of the subject trailers against Defendants because it shows that Plaintiff has the right to take immediate possession of the subject vehicle as a result of Defendants’ default on the Agreement and Guaranty.

B.     Location of Vehicle

Under CCP § 512.010(b)(4), the plaintiff must provide evidence of the location of the property.  Further, if the property is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, section (b)(4) requires there to be a showing that there is probable cause to believe that the property is located there.            

Ms. Serreyn states that Plaintiff is informed and believes that the subject trailers are located at 429 N. Lincoln Street, Burbank, CA 91506, which is based on the address provided on Weber Enterprise’s home page.  (Serreyn Decl., ¶8, Ex. 3.) 

These facts are sufficient to identify the location of the vehicle at Defendants’ address. 

C.     Undertaking

Finally, CCP § 512.060 requires that an undertaking be filed before a writ of possession may be issued.  CCP § 515.010(a) states that the undertaking shall be set at an amount not less than twice the value of the defendant's interest in the property.  In addition, CCP § 515.010(a) defines the value of the defendant's interest in the property as 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.  When a defendant does not have any interest in the property, CCP § 515.010(b) permits the Court to waive the requirement of the plaintiff's undertaking and set an undertaking for the defendant to keep possession or regain possession. 

            If the defendant seeks to retain possession of the property, CCP § 515.020 permits the defendant to file an undertaking and retain the property in an amount equal to the amount of the plaintiff’s undertaking determined in CCP § 515.010(a), or in an amount determined by the Court pursuant to CCP § 515.010(b). 

            In her initial declaration, Ms. Serreyn estimates the total value of the subject trailers to be $119,000, but states that the most current information regarding the vehicles are within the possession and knowledge of Defendants.  (Serreyn Decl., ¶9.) 

            On April 8, 2024, Ms. Serreyn provided a declaration pursuant to CCP § 585 in support of a default judgment.  The declaration includes the Desktop Appraisal Report by Shane Weber.  (Serreyn 4/8/24 Decl., at Ex. D [Appraisal].)  Based on the appraiser’s conclusion, the fair market values of the vehicles are: (1) $26,000 for the 2023 ACE BD111 Steel Bottom Dump Semi Trailer; and (2) $39,000 for the 2023 ACE ABD111 Steel Bottom Dump Pull Trailer.  (Appraisal at p.12.)  According to the declaration, the accelerated balance of the agreement due is $106,371.85.  (Serreyn 8/24/24 Decl., ¶11.)  This indicates that, for the purposes of CCP § 515.010, Defendants have no interest in the vehicle.  Accordingly, the Court waives the requirement for Plaintiff to file an undertaking because Defendants have no interest in the vehicle.

            As the application is not opposed, it does not appear that Defendants seek to retain possession of the vehicle and they are currently in default.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s application for a writ of possession against Defendants is granted.  The Court issues the requested writ of possession to obtain the (1) 1 Trailer – ACE – ABD111 – 2023 VIN#1A9ASD114PF896053; and (2) 1 Trailer – ACE – ABD111 – 2023 VIN#1A9AFD12XPF896054 vehicles at Defendants Shane Weber, individual and dba Weber Enterprise’s address at 429 N. Lincoln Street, Burbank, CA 91506. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED:  April 12, 2024                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court