Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STLC07504, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC07504    Hearing Date: June 12, 2024    Dept: 82

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation v. Naomi M. Benavidez, et al.

Case No. 23STLC07504

[Tentative] Order Denying Application for Writ of Possession against Naomi M. Benavidez

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Toyota Motor Credit Corporation dba Toyota Lease Trust (“Plaintiff”) moves for writs of possession against Defendants Naomi M. Benavidez (“Benavidez”) and Gamlet Zograbian (“Zograbian”), individually and doing business as “A&E Auto Body” (“A&E”) over the following property: 2022 Toyota Camry, motor vehicle, Vehicle Identification Number 4T1C11AKXNU714259 (the “Vehicle”).  Plaintiff dismissed the case against Zograbian, leaving only the application for a writ of possession against Defendant Benavidez.  The application is denied. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this chapter for a writ of possession by filing a written application for the writ with the court in which the action is brought.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.010(a).)  The application must be submitted under oath and include:

(1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed. If the basis of the plaintiff's claim is a written instrument, a copy of the instrument shall be attached.

(2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention.

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

(4) A statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the location of the property and, if the property, or some part of it, is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, a showing that there is probable cause to believe that such property is located there.

(5) A statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute; or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff; or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 512.010(b).) 

Before the hearing on the Writ of Possession, the Defendant must be served with (1) a copy of the summons and complaint; (2) a Notice of Application and Hearing; and (3) a copy of the application and any affidavit in support thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.030.)  “The writ will be issued if the court finds that the plaintiff's claim is probably valid and the other requirements for issuing the writ are established.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.040(b).)  “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 511.090.) 

DISCUSSION

            A.        Probable Validity of the Claim

Plaintiff seeks a writ of possession based on its claims for money due on a contract, conversion, and claim and delivery.  On or about August 1, 2022, Defendant Benavidez executed a Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement (the “Contract”) under which Benavidez leased the Vehicle from Hamer Toyota.  Subsequently, Hamer Toyota assigned the Contract to Plaintiff, dba Toyota Lease Trust.  (See Crawford Decl. ¶¶ 1, 7 & Exhs. A, B.)  Defendant Benavidez defaulted on the Contract by failing to make monthly payments starting in or about December 2023, and there is presently a balance due of $21,720.45.  (Id. ¶ 8 & Exh. C.) 

B.        Wrongful Detention

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010(b)(2), the application must include “a showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention.”  Under the Contract, Plaintiff has the right to repossess the Vehicle in the event of default.  (Crawford Decl., Exh. A.) 

Plaintiff submits evidence that Defendant Benavidez transferred the Vehicle to A&E, which performed repairs in or about March 2023.  (Id. ¶ 11.)  The Vehicle was then transferred to a dealership, Toyota of Glendale, for mechanical repairs before being returned to the body shop.  (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.)  A&E applied to the DMV for approval to conduct a lien sale, but Plaintiff opposes the sale.  (Id. ¶ 14 & Exh. D.)  Prior to commencement of this action, Plaintiff contacted A&E, which confirmed that it still has possession of the Vehicle.  (Id. ¶ 15.)  Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant Benavidez has wrongful possession of the vehicle or that there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle is at her residence (13041 Macneil Street in Sylmar, California 91342). 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

            1.         The court denies the application for writ of possession against Naomi M. Benavidez.  This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking a new writ of possession if it develops evidence that the Vehicle is in the possession of Benavidez and/or located at the Macneil Street address.

            2.         Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied.  This order is without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking attorneys’ fees from the home court at the conclusion of the case, assuming it is the prevailing party.

            3.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.