Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC03711, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC03711     Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Asaf Talasazan

RESP. PARTY:         H&L Automotive Financial Services

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(CCP § 525 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Talasazan’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED without prejudice.  The action is transferred to the reclassification desk for reassignment to unlimited civil.

OPPOSITION:          Filed 12/28/22                                                 [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of January 9, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

            On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff Asaf Talasazan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants H&L Automotive Financial Services (“H&L”), State of California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”), and Steven Gordon in his capacity of Director of State of California Department of Motion Vehicles (“Gordon”).  All defendants have been served but only H&L has filed an answer. 

            On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Preliminary Injunction, seeking to preliminarily enjoin Defendants Gordon and the DMV from transferring any right, title or interest in or to a 2015 Kia Optima (“Kia Optima”). 

On December 28, 2022, H&L filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

The general purpose of a preliminary injunction is the preservation of the status quo until a final determination of the merits of the action. (Stewart v. Superior Court (1893) 100 Cal. 543, 545. Accordingly, the Court examines all the material before it in order to consider "whether a greater injury will result to the defendant from granting the injunction than to the plaintiff from refusing it; ..." (Santa Cruz Fair Bldg. Assn. v. Grant (1894) 104 Cal. 306, 308).

The Court notes two issues with the Motion.  First, a verified complaint or affidavit may be used to support an order for a preliminary injunction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.)  Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is not verified, so Plaintiff must rely on an affidavit or declaration.  Plaintiff’s declaration, however, does not set forth sufficient facts on which to grant a preliminary injunction.

Second, in his Complaint, Plaintiff has requested relief in the form of a “declaration that Plaintiff is the legal owner of the Vehicle with all rights and duties pertaining thereto.”  A limited civil court does not have authority to award declaratory relief except in certain circumstances that do not apply here (Code Civ. Proc. § 86).  Accordingly, the Court hereby transfers this case to the reclassification desk for reassignment to unlimited civil. 

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED without prejudice.  The action is transferred to the reclassification desk for reassignment to unlimited civil.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.