Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00298, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00298    Hearing Date: April 3, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 4/3/23

Case #23CHCV00298

WRIT OF POSSESSION

Application filed on 3/1/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Vernon Brown and DIGSB K9

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant JR7 Worldwide, Inc. dba Genesis 1 Auto Concepts

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: A writ of possession regarding a customized 1984 Chevy C10 Silverado, VIN 1GCDC14F3EJ188673.

RULING: The application is granted as set forth below.   

This action arises out of Plaintiffs Vernon Brown and DIGSB K9’s (Plaintiffs) claim that Defendant JR7 Worldwide, Inc. dba Genesis 1 Auto Concepts (Defendant) caused their customized 1984 Chevy C10 Silverado, VIN 1GCDC14F3EJ188673, to catch fire, agreed to then repair the vehicle and then refused to return the unrepaired vehicle to Plaintiffs when Defendant’s insurer refused to cover the cost of repair unless Plaintiffs paid $24,000.00 in storage fees.

On 2/2/23, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant and Jay Nieto for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Negligence, (4) Intentional Misrepresentation, (5) Negligent Misrepresentation, (6) Trespass to Chattels, (7) Conversion, (8) Intentional Interference With Contractual Relationships, (9) Claim and Delivery, (10) Breach of Contract, (11) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (12) Intentional Misrepresentation and (13) Negligent Misrepresentation.   On 3/1/23, Plaintiffs filed  the instant application for a writ of possession regarding the customized 1984 Chevy C10 Silverado, VIN 1GCDC14F3EJ188673.  Defendant has filed a “limited” opposition to the application. 

In the “limited” opposition, Defendant contends that the application is defective because: (1) it does not contain a statement of the value of the subject vehicle and (2) it does not show that Plaintiffs have the probable validity of prevailing on the merits or that Defendant wrongfully possessed the vehicle.  See CCP 512.010(b)(3); CCP 512.010(b)(1), (2).  However, because Plaintiffs has posted a bond for $48,001.00 which is more than twice the amount of storage fees claimed by Defendant, Defendant indicates that it is willing to release the vehicle to Plaintiffs pending a determination on the merits of this action. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff did not provide the value of the vehicle as required by CCP 512.010(b)(3).  While Brown states that he estimates that he has spent about $35,000 as part of the truck’s customization, such does not necessarily mean that “the truck’s value is worth at least $35,000 plus damage in light of repairs related to the truck burning in Defendants’ possession” as claimed in the reply.  (See Brown Decl. ¶4; Reply p.2:18-19).  First, based on the statement in the reply, it is not clear how much Plaintiff is claiming the truck is currently worth (i.e., $35,000 minus damage caused by the fire? How much is the damage?).  Also, it is not clear when the customizations were done and whether they would still have a value of at least $35,000 without the damage caused by fire.

The Court finds that based on the unrefuted declaration of Plaintiff Vernon Brown (Brown) submitted in support of the application, Plaintiffs have shown the probable validity of Plaintiffs’ claim to possession of the vehicle (i.e., Plaintiffs are the owners, Defendants refused to return the vehicle upon request unless Plaintiffs paid $24,000 for storage fees after promising to repair the vehicle).  CCP 512.060(a); (Vernon Decl.).  Plaintiffs have also satisfied the undertaking requirements of CCP 515.010.  CCP 512.060(b); (Vernon Decl.).  

Based on the foregoing and since “Defendants agree to Plaintiffs taking possession of the subject vehicle while this action is pending, as long as a bond is posted,” the application is granted and the writ of possession will issue upon Plaintiff posting the $48,001.00 bond attached to the Brown Declaration as Exhibit F.  (See  Opposition, p.4:3-4).