Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STCP04280, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

County of Los Angeles Taskforce for Regional Autotheft Prevention, East Team v. Saleh, et al.

PETITION FOR DISPOSITION OF VEHICLE WITH ALTERED SERIAL NUMBER OR IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

(Cal. Veh. Code, § 10751)

Petitioner Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Taskforce for Regional Autotheft Prevention, East Team’s Petition for Disposition of Vehicle with Altered Serial or Identification Number is DENIED.

On December 6, 2022, Petitioner Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Taskforce for Regional Autotheft Prevention, East Team (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Disposition of Vehicle with Altered Serial Number or Identification Number against Respondent Mike Saleh (“Respondent”). The Petition came for hearing on May 11, 2023, at which time only Respondent appeared. (Minute Order, 05/11/23.) At Respondent’s request, the hearing was continued to August 7, 2023. (Ibid.) On July 12, 2023, Respondent filed a response to the Petition; supporting exhibits were filed on July 26, 2023.

The Petition seeks the disposition of a motor vehicle with an altered vehicle identification number (“VIN”) pursuant to Cal. Vehicle Code section 10751, which states in relevant part:

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.

(Cal. Veh. Code, § 10751, subd. (b).) The 90-day deadline within which the hearing must be held is directory, as opposed to mandatory or jurisdictional. (Cox v. California Highway Patrol (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1580, 1586-1587.) The instant Petition was filed more than 90 days ago but the burden falls to Respondent to demonstrate that they would be prejudiced by a belated hearing. (Id. at 1590.) As there is no such showing, the Court will consider the merits of the Petition.

Vehicle Code section 10751, subdivision (e) places on Petitioner “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.” (Veh. Code, § 10751, subd. (e)(3).) The Petition is supported by a statement from Mark Gonzalez (#TO1791), a detective assigned to Petitioner and a sworn police officer. (Pet., p. 2.) Detective Gonzalez states that the vehicle identification number (“VIN”) on the vehicle appeared to have been tampered with, as there were scratches over the last six digits and one section lightly stamped and another section of more deeply engraved numbers. (Pet., Gonzalez Affidavit, pp. 1-2.) Also, the VIN plate on the vehicle was not consistent with the VIN Respondent had registered with the DMV. (Pet., Gonzalez Affidavit, p. 2.) At the time that Detective Gonzalez spoke with him, Respondent did not have documents to prove that he registered the vehicle with the DMV. (Ibid.) The Petition also attaches a copy of a vehicle report, which corroborates Detective Gonzalez’s statement. (Pet., pp. 4-7; 9-13.)

In response to the Petition, Respondent produces evidence regarding his purchase and ownership of the vehicle. Specifically, that Respondent purchased the vehicle in 1999 from a friend’s father, Joe S. Arredono, as stated by both the friend, Gregory Arredono, and the friend’s mother, Estella E. Arredondo. (Response, Attachment A.) Joe S. Arredono passed away in July 2005. (Ibid.) Respondent also submits a certificate of title for the vehicle from the DMV, showing it was registered on January 1, 2000. (See Response, Exhs. 1-2.) Respondent and Gregory Arredono state the vehicle was registered with the DMV with the VIN number from the engine but that engine has since been removed and is not in Respondent’s possession. (Response, ¶3; Exh. A.) This evidence supports Respondent’s claim of ownership of the vehicle. Even if Petitioner has shown that the VIN was altered, Respondent countered by demonstrating his ownership of the vehicle. To date, Petitioner has not filed a reply disputing Respondent’s evidence.

Therefore, Petitioner Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Taskforce for Regional Autotheft Prevention, East Team’s Petition for Disposition of Vehicle with Altered Serial or Identification Number is DENIED.