Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STCP00104, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCP00104 Hearing Date: February 21, 2024 Dept: 26
Alvarez v. Silverlake Autobody & Paint, et al.
MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(CCP § 533)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Respondent Silverlake Autobody & Paint’s Motion to
Dissolve Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.
ANALYSIS:
On January 12, 2023, Petitioner Ajah Alvarez (“Petitioner”) filed the instant action—a Petition for
Order Releasing Property from Claim of Mechanic’s Lien—against Respondent
Silverlake Auto Body & Paint. (“Respondent”). The action was assigned to Limited
Jurisdiction Department 25 in the Spring Street Courthouse. On February 10,
2023, Writs and Receivers Department 85 in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse denied
Petitioner’s ex parte application for writ of possession. (Minute Order,
02/10/23.) The denial was without prejudice to Petitioner bringing a noticed
motion for writ of possession. (Ibid.) On February 28, 2023, Writs and
Receivers Department 85 in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse granted Petitioner’s ex
parte application for a temporary restraining order and set an order to show
cause regarding preliminary injunction for March 21, 2023. (Minute Order,
02/28/23.) The preliminary injunction as granted by Writs and Receivers
Department 85 in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse on March 21, 2023.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction (“the
Motion”) on June 20, 2023. Petitioner’s subsequent ex parte applications for
writ of possession were denied on July 27, 2023, September 20, 2023, and
September 25, 2023 by Writs and Receivers Department 85 in the Stanley Mosk
Courthouse without prejudice to filing a noticed motion. (Minute Orders,
07/27/23, 09/20/23, 09/25/23.) Petitioner filed an opposition to the Motion on
September 11, 2023.
The Motion initially came for hearing on August 24, 2023 and was
continued to November 15, 2023. (Minute Orders, 08/24/23 and 09/21/23.) Respondent
filed a supplemental declaration on November 7, 2023. The action was then transferred
from Limited Jurisdiction Department 25 in the Spring Street Courthouse to
Limited Jurisdiction Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse on November
15, 2023. On December 7, 2023, Writs and Receivers Department 85 in the Stanley
Mosk Courthouse granted Petitioner’s noticed motion for writ of possession.
(Minute Order 12/07/23.) Respondent also filed a reply brief on February 6,
2024.
Discussion
The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 533, which states in relevant part: “In any action, the
court may on notice modify or dissolve an injunction or temporary restraining
order upon a showing that there has been a material change in the facts upon
which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted, that the law upon
which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted has changed, or
that the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of
the injunction or temporary restraining order.” (Code Civ. Proc. §¿533.)
The Court previously found the Motion
to be deficient on the grounds that Respondent failed to properly serve the papers
and failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that Wells Fargo is
attempting to repossess the vehicle and Respondent is legally obligated to
return it. As to
the first issue of the notice, Respondent filed a proof of service of the
instant motion by mail to Petitioner on November 7, 2023. Petitioner has also
filed an opposition, which indicates that she received notice of the motion. Thus,
the Court will consider the merits.
Respondent is currently in
possession of Petitioner’s vehicle. Respondent claims that Petitioner left
the vehicle with Respondent and authorized repairs to be made after she was
involved in automobile accidents; however, she failed to make full payment for
these repairs. (Motion, Chilgevorkyan Decl. ¶¶6-10.)
On January 12, 2023, Petitioner the
instant Petition for Order Releasing Property from Claim of Mechanic’s Lien. On
May 18, 2023, the Petition was placed off calendar as moot as there was no
evidence presented to the Court regarding the existence of a mechanic’s lien on
Petitioner’s vehicle. (Minute Order, 05/18/23.) However, the Court did grant
Petitioner’s earlier application for a preliminary injunction and enjoined
Silverlake from “selling, auctioning, leasing or assigning possession of the
Vehicle.” (Minute Order, 03/21/23.)
Respondent now moves for a Court
order dissolving the preliminary injunction issued on March 21, 2023. (Mot. p.
1.) Respondent states that on March 2, 2023, it “received a call
from Wells Fargo inquiring about charges to pick up the vehicle.” (Motion, Chilgevorkyan
Decl. ¶12.) Respondent believes that Petitioner may
be behind on payments on the vehicle. (Ibid.) Respondent argues that the preliminary injunction should be
dissolved because Wells Fargo’s demand for the vehicle due to Petitioner’s
default constitutes a material change in circumstances. The Motion further
argues Respondent is legally obligated to return the vehicle to Wells
Fargo. The supporting declaration of Respondent’s
counsel, Abraham L. Niman, demonstrates that Respondent received the
“Declaration of Legal Owner of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,” which contains exhibits
showing a contract executed between Petitioner and Wells Fargo, with a balance
owed on the contract and an inspection demand letter sent to Respondent. (Motion,
Niman Decl., filed 11/07/23, Exhs. A-B.) In
opposition, Petitioner asserts that the lien on Petitioner’s vehicle is
invalid.
The Court finds that the evidence
presented by Respondent in support of the Motion is sufficient to show that Wells Fargo is attempting to repossess the
vehicle and Respondent is legally obligated to return it. The Court agrees that the change in these circumstances
“voids the underlying reasoning of the preliminary injunction and justice can
only be served if the injunction is dissolved.” The attached documents to the recently filed declaration
show that Respondent remains in physical possession of the vehicle; Wells Fargo
is legally entitled to retake the vehicle upon Petiitoner’s default pursuant to
the parties’ contractual agreement, wherein Wells Fargo financed the purchase
of Petitioner’s vehicle; Wells Fargo claims a superior possessory interest to
Respondent; and Wells Fargo states it intends to retake possession of the
collateral upon conclusion of the proceedings. (Motion, Niman Decl. ¶4, Exh. A.)
The Declaration of Legal Owner Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. contains the information
described above and was executed on November 6, 2023. Respondent sufficiently demonstrates
a change in controlling factors which require a dissolution of the preliminary
injunction. Further, Petitioner fails to provide any evidence or argument
showing that the claims made by Respondent are untrue or that there are
insufficient grounds to grant the motion. Rather, the evidence shows that
Respondent will be unable to sell the car through a mechanics lien, but that
Wells Fargo must be obligated to repossess their asset as the superior
lienholder.
Conclusion
Based on the
foregoing, Respondent Silverlake Autobody & Paint’s Motion to Dissolve
Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.