Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00441, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00441    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: SEC

HAAS V. DELGADO

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00441

HEARING:  9/21/22 @ 1:30 PM

#11

TENTATIVE RULING

The court is inclined to grant Plaintiff Bryan Haas’s application for writ of possession, but will hear from Plaintiff regarding the amount of the undertaking.

Plaintiff Bryan Haas applies for a writ of possession pursuant to CCP § 512.010 et seq.

Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply for a writ of possession.  (CCP § 512.010(a).)  The application shall include all of the following, which may be established by affidavit, pursuant to CCP § 512.101(b):

1.    The basis of the plaintiff’s claim that the plaintiff is entitled to possession;

2.    A showing that the property is wrongfully detained and of the manner in which defendant came into possession;

3.    A particular description of the property and a statement of its value;

4.    The property’s location based on plaintiff’s knowledge, information and belief; and

5.    A statement that the property has not been seized by statute or execution against it.

The writ will be issued if the plaintiff’s claim is probably valid.  (CCP § 512.040(b).)  A writ to take possession of property at a private location requires the plaintiff to show probable cause that the property is located there.  (CCP § 512.060(b).)

Plaintiff presents the following evidence:  Plaintiff purchased the boat from Commander Boats.  (Haas Decl., ¶¶ 3-6, Ex. G.)  After Plaintiff purchased his Boat, additional work needed to be done on the Boat, portions of which Commander Boats subcontracted with Defendant to complete.  (Haas Decl., ¶ 7.)  Commander Boats and Defendant had a contract dispute regarding money payments that Commander Boats allegedly owed.  (Id., ¶ 7.)  Defendant intentionally removed Plaintiff’s Boat off of the trailer that was inside Defendant’s plant in Norwalk, and transported it to an unknown destination, unlawfully holding it as ransom.  (Id., ¶ 8.)

In opposition, Defendant presents the following evidence:  On May 19, 2021 and July 16, 2021, Defendant entered into contracts with Aerosystem Inc. dba Commander Boats for construction of the boat’s hull (Hull ID #COJ28442G122 and Hull ID #COJ28446G122), to be sold to a third party buyer.  (Delgado Decl., 8:7-13, Exs. A-B.)  Defendant paid all expenses and charges related to the construction of the hull.  (Id., 8:21-22.)  Thereafter, on December 29, 2021, Plaintiff entered into a purchase order with Commander Boats for Hull ID #COJ28446G122.  (Haas Decl., Ex. C.)  Defendant contends that vessel is an unfinished hull and has no engine and no propeller.  (Delgardo Decl., 9:5-6.)

Based on the evidence submitted, the court finds that Plaintiff has established probability of the claim.  Plaintiff purchased the boat, carrying Serial #COJ28446G122.  (Haas Decl., Ex. C.)  This serial number matches the serial number on the July 16, 2021 contract that Defendant had with Commander Boats.  (Delgado Decl, Ex. B.)  That contract states that “[t]he boat buyer… will purchase this boat, during its build process, with an anticipated completion date.”  (Id., Section III.)  Plaintiff purchased the boat for the sale price of $135,900.00.  (Haas Decl., Ex. C.) 

Defendant’s claim is with Commander Boats, not with Plaintiff.  Per Defendant’s agreement with Commander Boats, the cost of building the boat will be borne by both parties equally, and the net proceeds will be distributed equally.  (Delgado Decl., Ex. B, Section V.)  The contract does not specify who owns the product during the construction.  Rather, the product was anticipated to be sold to a third party during its construction. Based on the evidence submitted, Plaintiff has established probability of the claim. 

The court will hear from Plaintiff regarding the amount of the undertaking.