Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 24NNCV05143, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 24NNCV05143, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV05143 Hearing Date: January 31, 2025 Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 11

Date: 1/31/2024

Case No.: 24 NNCV05143 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Ally Bank Lease Trust v. Palomera

WRIT OF POSSESSION

Moving Party: Plaintiff Ally Bank Lease Trust

Responding Party: Defendant Brijida Palomera (No Opposition)

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

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

Plaintiff Ally Bank Lease Trust is an assignee of a Contract with defendant Brijida Palomera for the lease of a motor vehicle. [Ex. A]. Under this contract, upon a default of any provision, plaintiff has the right to immediate possession of the vehicle. [Decl., para. 5]. Defendant has defaulted in payment on the agreement. [Decl., para. 6]. Plaintiff has made demand for surrender, and is entitled to return of the automobile. [Decl., paras. 6, 8].

If based on written instrument, copy attached?

Yes, Exhibit A, largely illegible

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

Vehicle delivered, electronic title document. [Decl., para. 5, Ex. B].

Particular description of property and statement of its value?

Description and VIN [Decl., para. 5, Application, para. 4]

Value and J.D. Power Report, $39,250.00 average wholesale, $44,525.00 retail. [Decl., para. 7; Ex. C]

Statement of location of the property

Ok [Decl., para. 10]

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

Application, para. 8; Decl., para. 9

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, there are two problems with the application. First, the specific terms of the Lease Agreement attached to the application are largely illegible. The copy of the Lease Agreement attached to the complaint is no better. This deficiency is so despite the use of magnifying devices in connection with the copies submitted electronically. Accordingly, although the Singleton Declaration in support of the application states that, “Pursuant to the terms of said Lease, upon a default of any provision thereof, Plaintiff has the right to immediate possession of the subject Vehicle,” no specific numbered term is referenced, and the court cannot confirm that any term of the subject lease includes such a provision. [Decl., para. 5, Ex. A].

Second, the evidence is confusing with respect to the standing of plaintiff as assignee here. The plaintiff here is “Ally Bank Lease Trust.” [Complaint, p.1:19-20; Application, para. 1 (a).] The Lease Agreement attached is largely illegible, but seems to reflect an Agreement with Camino Real Chevrolet, which Lease Agreement possibly indicates lessor will assign the lease to “ALLY BANK LEASE TRUST,” but the assignment language is not clear. [Ex. A, p. 1].

The declaration submitted refers to Exhibit B, and indicates that the electronic title document submitted constitutes “proof evidencing Plaintiff’s ownership (through VAULT) and its perfected security interest (through Ally Bank) in the Vehicle.” [Decl., para. 5]. That document states that the registered owner is “VAULT FOR ALLY FNCL OR COLT LSR.” [Ex. B]. The lienholder is designated “ALLY FNCL.” [Ex B.]

There is no specific evidence submitted explaining how plaintiff Ally Bank Lease Trust is affiliated with Ally Bank, or with Vault for Ally or Ally Fncl., the registered owner and lienholder in connection with the subject vehicle.

Due to the extraordinary nature of pretrial statutory writ remedies, their requirements are ordinarily subject to strict construction. See Pacific Design Decision Sciences Corp. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1106.

Here, the requirements are not met by the showing submitted. The application accordingly is denied on the ground plaintiff has failed to sufficiently establish, by admissible, legible, and explanatory evidence, its standing to pursue this matter, or its right to immediate possession of the subject vehicle.

If the court is persuaded that plaintiff is the proper assignee/owner, and that the Lease Agreement includes a term concerning the right of possession upon default, the paperwork is otherwise in order and there is no opposition, so the court may find that plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claim to possession of the property.

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 Agreement at issue is a lease agreement under which defendant has not perfected an interest in the vehicle, and no bond will be required.

RULING:

[No opposition].

Application for writ of possession is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish the probable validity of its claim to possession of the property, as it has failed to establish that under the illegible Lease Agreement submitted with the moving papers that plaintiff is contractually entitled to immediate possession of the vehicle or that plaintiff has been affirmatively assigned the rights under the Lease Agreement. [See Ex. A]. In addition, it is unclear how plaintiff claims to be the owner or other holder of enforceable interest in the subject vehicle, as the Certificate of Title submitted shows the Registered Owner as “VAULT FOR ALLY OR COLT LSR,” and the Lienholder as “ALLY FNCL,” with the application offering no showing concerning how plaintiff, Ally Bank Lease Trust, has standing to pursue the rights of those parties.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE

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. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances. Please note that in the case of video appearances, 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.