TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 7

Date: 6/28/2024

Case No.: 24 NNCV00596 Trial Date:  None Set

Case Name: Mercedes-Benz Vehicle Trust v. Nikolyan    

WRIT OF POSSESSION

Moving Party: Plaintiff Mercedes-Benz Vehicle Trust     

Responding Party: Defendant Artur Nikolyan (No Opposition)

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

Showing of the basis of the plaintiff’s claim and that entitled to possession?

If based on written instrument, copy attached?

Yes, Exhibit 1  

Showing that property wrongfully detained by defendant, manner in which came into possession and reason for detention?

Defendant took possession, certificate of title, certificate of merger. [Decl.¶¶ 12, 14, 17; Exs. 2, 3].

Particular description of property and statement of its value?

Description and VIN [Decl. ¶ 12; Application ¶ 4]

Value and Kelley Blue Book listing, $75,096.00. [Decl.¶ 24; Application ¶ 4; Ex. 5]

Statement of location of the property

Ok [Decl. ¶ 23]

Property not taken for a tax, assessment, fine or seizure?

Application ¶ 8

             

OPPOSITION:

NO OPPOSITION 

ANALYSIS:

Under CCP § 512.060:

“(a) At the hearing, a writ of possession shall issue if both of the following are found:

(1) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the plaintiff’s claim to possession of the property.

 

(2) The undertaking requirements of Section 515.010 are satisfied.”

Under CCP section 511.090:

“A claim has "probable validity" where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim.”

The Official Comments to CCP section 512.060 note:

“The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to establish the probable validity of his claim.”

Here, as detailed above, the application submits evidence from which the court may find that the claim to possession is probably valid.   The Lease Agreement itself provides for assignment of the Lease Agreement from the dealer to Daimler Trust or its successors or assigns.  [Ex. 1, p. 1, 6].  The Certificate of Merger shows that Daimler Trust merged into Mercedes-Benz Vehicle Trust effective January 31, 2023.  [Ex. 3].

Under CCP section 515.010 (b), in ordering an undertaking, “If the court finds that the defendant has no interest in the property, the court shall waive the requirement of the plaintiff’s undertaking...”    Here, the Lease Agreement is a lease agreement under which defendant has not perfected an interest in the vehicle.  [Ex. 1, para. 25].  No bond is required.

Plaintiff requests that a redelivery bond be required by defendant in the sum of $134,000.00, which plaintiff indicates represents the account balance ($132,585.65) with an estimated $1,000 in attorney’s fees [Decl.  ¶ 25, Ex. 4].  The Kelley Blue Book value of the vehicle is shown as $75,096.00 for “Fair Purchase Price.”  [Ex. 5].  The monthly payment in the Lease Agreement is $2,054.88.  [Ex. 1, para. 6].  

CCP section 515.020 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) The defendant may prevent the plaintiff from taking possession of property pursuant to a writ of possession or regain possession of property so taken by filing with the court in which the action was brought an undertaking in an amount equal to the amount of the plaintiff's undertaking pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 515.010 or in the amount determined by the court pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 515.010.

(b) The undertaking shall state that, if the plaintiff recovers judgment on the action, the defendant shall pay all costs awarded to the plaintiff and all damages that the plaintiff may sustain by reason of the loss of possession of the property. The damages recoverable by the plaintiff pursuant to this section shall include all damages proximately caused by the plaintiff's failure to gain or retain possession.”

CCP section 515.010 (b) provides:

“(b) If the court finds that the defendant has no interest in the property, the court shall waive the requirement of the plaintiff's undertaking and shall include in the order for issuance of the writ the amount of the defendant's undertaking sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 515.020.”

The court will discuss whether the redelivery bond in the sum sought fairly reflects the damages expected to be suffered if plaintiff fails to gain possession, or if such damages would be limited to the monthly payments due and owing and to be due and owing and the loss of value of the vehicle through the trial of this matter plus court costs and attorney’s fees.   In the absence of opposition, the court expects that the amount of defendant’s undertaking will be set as requested. 

RULING:

[No opposition].

UNOPPOSED Application for Writ of Possession is GRANTED.  The Court finds that plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claim to possession of the property.  No bond is required for issuance of the writ inasmuch as defendant has no interest in the subject property.  CCP §515.010.

Pursuant to CCP sections 515.0020 and 515.010(b), the court sets the amount of defendant’s undertaking at $134,000.00 [$134,000.00 requested]. 

Any undertaking shall state that, if the plaintiff recovers judgment on the action, the defendant shall pay all costs awarded to the plaintiff and all damages that the plaintiff may sustain by reason of the loss of possession of the property.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE 

AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances.  However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. 

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.