Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STCP03635 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP03635, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP03635 Hearing Date: April 3, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION FOR VEHICLE DISPOSITION

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner County of Los Angeles, Taskforce for Regional Autotheft Prevention (“TRAP”), East Team

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION FOR DISPOSITION OF VEHICLE

(Veh. Code, § 10751)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on Petition for Disposition of Vehicle, filed by Petitioner County of Los Angeles, TRAP is CONTINUED to MAY 8 , 2023 at 10:30 A.M. in DEPARTMENT 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Petitioner is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 29, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 29, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On October 6, 2022, Petitioner County of Los Angeles, Taskforce for Regional Autotheft Prevention, East Team (“TRAP”) (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Disposition of Vehicle, with Altered Serial or Identification Number (“Petition”) against Respondent Marcela Elizabeth Chavez Espinoza (“Respondent”).

On January 20, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition to March 2, 2023. (1-20-23 Minute Order.)

On February 16, 2023, Petitioner filed a Substitution of Attorney, substituting Raymond J. Fuentes as counsel.

On March 2, 2023, the Court noted deficiencies in the Petition and continued the hearing to allow Petitioner an opportunity to correct these deficiencies. (3-2-23 Minute Order.)

On March 8, 2023, Petitioner filed proof of serving the Notice of Continuance on all interested parties.

On March 9, 2023, Petitioner filed supplemental papers.

No opposition was filed.

II. Legal Standard

Vehicle Code § 10751 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a) No person shall knowingly buy, sell, offer for sale, receive, or have in his or her possession, any vehicle, or component part thereof, from which any serial or identification number, including, but not limited to, any number used for registration purposes, that is affixed by the manufacturer to the vehicle or component part, in whatever manner deemed proper by the manufacturer, has been removed, defaced, altered, or destroyed, unless the vehicle or component part has attached thereto an identification number assigned or approved by the department in lieu of the manufacturer's number.

(b) Whenever a vehicle described in subdivision (a), including a vehicle assembled with any component part which is in violation of subdivision (a), comes into the custody of a peace officer, it shall be destroyed, sold, or otherwise disposed of under the conditions as provided in an order by the court having jurisdiction. No court order providing for disposition shall be issued unless the person from whom the property was seized, and all claimants to the property whose interest or title is on registration records in the Department of Motor Vehicles, are provided a postseizure hearing by the court having jurisdiction within 90 days after the seizure. This subdivision shall not apply with respect to a seized vehicle or component part used as evidence in any criminal action or proceeding. Nothing in this section shall, however, preclude the return of a seized vehicle or a component part to the owner by the seizing agency following presentation of satisfactory evidence of ownership and, if determined necessary, upon the assignment of an identification number to the vehicle or component part by the department.

(c) Whenever a vehicle described in subdivision (a) comes into the custody of a peace officer, the person from whom the property was seized, and all claimants to the property whose interest or title is on registration records in the Department of Motor Vehicles, shall be notified within five days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, after the seizure, of the date, time, and place of the hearing required in subdivision (b). The notice shall contain the information specified in subdivision (d).”

(d) Whenever a peace officer seizes a vehicle described in subdivision (a), the person from whom the property was seized shall be provided a notice of impoundment of the vehicle which shall serve as a receipt and contain the following information:

(1) Name and address of person from whom the property was seized.

(2) A statement that the vehicle seized has been impounded for investigation of a violation of Section 10751 of the California Vehicle Code and that the property will be released upon a determination that the serial or identification number has not been removed, defaced, altered, or destroyed, or upon the presentation of satisfactory evidence of ownership of the vehicle or a component part, if no other person claims an interest in the property; ¿otherwise, a hearing regarding the disposition of the vehicle shall take place in the proper court.

(3) A statement that the person from whom the property was seized, and all claimants to the property whose interest or title is on registration records in the Department of Motor Vehicles, will receive written notification of the date, time, and place of the hearing within five days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, after the seizure.

(4) Name and address of the law enforcement agency where evidence of ownership of the vehicle or component part may be presented.

(5) A statement of the contents of Section 10751 of the Vehicle Code.

(e) A hearing on the disposition of the property shall be held by the superior court within 90 days after the seizure. The hearing shall be before the court without a jury. A proceeding under this section is a limited civil case.

(1) If the evidence reveals either that the serial or identification number has not been removed, defaced, altered, or destroyed or that the number has been removed, defaced, altered, or destroyed but satisfactory evidence of ownership has been presented to the seizing agency or court, the property shall be released to the person entitled thereto. Nothing in this section precludes the return of the vehicle or a component part to a good faith purchaser following presentation of satisfactory evidence of ownership thereof upon the assignment of an identification number to the vehicle or component part by the department.

(2) If the evidence reveals that the identification number has been removed, defaced, altered, or destroyed, and satisfactory evidence of ownership has not been presented, the vehicle shall be destroyed, sold, or otherwise disposed of as provided by court order.

(3) At the hearing, the seizing agency has the burden of establishing that the serial or identification number has been removed, defaced, altered, or destroyed and that no satisfactory evidence of ownership has been presented.

III. Discussion

Petitioner has filed a Notice of Impoundment of Vehicle, which complies with the requirements of Vehicle Code § 10751(d). (Pet. pp. 7-8.) Petitioner alleges that the individual with ownership interests and rights in the vehicle “has been notified of these proceedings by written notice sent by certified mail to the address appearing below opposite the name of the person so notified” and “Proof of notice has been filed herein.” (Pet. ¶ 4.)

Petitioner has also filed the declaration of Detective Mark Gonzalez of TRAP, setting forth the specific circumstances of the investigation of the vehicle at issue in the instant case. (Pet. pp. 3-4.) Detective Gonzalez requests the return of the vehicle to Marcela Chavez. (Ibid. at p. 4.)

On March 2, 2023, the Court noted that the declaration of Detective Gonzalez is not signed and dated. (3-2-23 Minute Order.) Moreover, Petitioner has not filed proof that Respondent has been served with the Notice of Impoundment or the instant Petition and Notice of Hearing. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition and provided Petitioner an opportunity to submit Detective Gonzalez’s declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, and proof that Respondent has been served with all necessary documents. (Ibid.)

On March 8, 2023, Petitioner filed proof of serving the Notice of Continuance on all interested parties. (3-8-23 Minute Order.)

On March 9, 2023, Petitioner filed supplemental papers. Petitioner has filed a signed declaration of Detective Gonzalez; however, the declaration is not signed under penalty of perjury, as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 2015.5. (3-9-23 Pet. p. 4.) Petitioner has also filed proof that all interested parties have been served with the Notice of Impoundment. (Ibid. at pp. 31-40.) Finally, Petitioner has filed proof that all interested parties were served with the Petition on March 8, 2023, via mail and electronic transmission. (Ibid. at pp. 42-43.)

The Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied nearly all requirements for the Petition. However, Petitioner is ordered to file Detective Gonzalez’s declaration, signed under penalty of perjury. In addition, the Court requests that Petitioner submit a new Petition wherein the signature line for the judge is blank (the one submitted has the judge’s name written on it). For these reasons, the Court once again continues the hearing on the Petition.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Petitioner to give notice.