Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21VECV01601, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21VECV01601    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: W

PORSCHE LEASING LTD., et al. v. SERYOZHA ARUSHANYAN, et al.

APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SEIZE PROPERTY IN PRIVATE PLACE

Date of Hearing:  September 12, 2022                                  Trial Date: N/A

Department:    W                                                                    Case No.: 21VECV01601

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Porsche Leasing Ltd. and Porsche Financial Services, Inc.

Responding Party: None

BACKGROUND

This is an action to recover possession of a vehicle and for a deficiency judgment.  Plaintiffs Porsche Leasing Ltd. and Porsche Financial Services, Inc. allege that, on or about February 27, 2021, Defendant Seryozha Arushanyan (“Arushanyan”) entered into a lease agreement with McKenna Porsche for the lease of a used 2021 Porsche Cayenne GTS (“Vehicle”).  Under the lease agreement, Arushanyan agreed to make thirty-six consecutive monthly payments in the amount of $1,948.88 commencing February 27, 2021.  McKenna Porsche assigned its rights, title, and interest in the agreement to Plaintiff Porsche Leasing Ltd., who thereafter provided it to Plaintiff Porsche Financial Services, Inc. for servicing.  Plaintiffs allege that, on or about July 27, 2021, Arushanyan defaulted on the agreement by failing to make the payment due.  Plaintiffs made a demand for the return of the Vehicle, but Defendants have failed and refused to turn over possession of the Vehicle or discuss the account with Plaintiffs. Plaintiff alleges that the Vehicle may be located at or near a garage or parking space associated with Arushanyan or with Defendant Eliza Shakhikyan (“Shakhikyan”).

On November 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants Arushanyan and Shakhikyan for (1) possession of personal property, (2) deficiency judgment, (3) foreclosure of security interest with deficiency judgment, (4) breach of express written contract, (5) money lent, and (6) account stated.

On March 21, 2022, default judgment was entered against Defendants Arushanyan and Shakhikyan.

On April 4, 2022, the Court issued a writ of possession of personal property.

Plaintiffs now move for a court order directing the levying officer to seize property in a private place.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiffs Porsche Leasing Ltd. and Porsche Financial Services, Inc.’s Application for Order to Seize Property in Private Place is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP section 699.030 provides the following:

If personal property sought to be levied upon is located in a private place of the judgment debtor:

(a)   The levying officer making the levy shall demand delivery of the property by the judgment debtor and shall advise the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor may be liable for costs and attorney’s fees incurred in any further proceedings to obtain delivery of the property.  If the judgment debtor does not deliver the property, the levying officer shall make no further effort to obtain custody of the property and shall promptly notify the judgment creditor of the failure to obtain custody of the property.

(b)   The judgment creditor may apply to the court ex parte, or on noticed motion if the court so directs or a court rule so requires, for an order directing the levying officer to seize the property in the private place.  The application may be made whether or not a writ has been issued and whether or not demand has been made pursuant to subdivision (a).  The application for the order shall describe with particularity both the property sought to be levied upon, and the place where it is to be found, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the judgment creditor.  The court may not issue the order unless the judgment creditor establishes that there is probable cause to believe that property sought to be levied upon is located in the place described.  The levying officer making the levy, at the time delivery of the property pursuant to the order is demanded, shall announce his or her identity, purpose, and authority.  If the property is not voluntarily delivered, the levying officer may cause the building or enclosure where the property is believed to be located to be broken open in such manner as the levying officer reasonably believes will cause the least damage, but if the levying officer reasonably believes that entry and seizure of the property will involve a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm to any person, the levying officer shall refrain from entering and shall promptly make a return to the court setting forth the reasons for believing that the risk exists.  In such a case, the court shall make such orders as may be appropriate.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 699.030.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek a court order directing the levying officer to seize the Vehicle (i.e., a 2021 Porsche Cayenne GTS, Vehicle Identification Number WP1AG2AY6MDA34134) from 7440 Sepulveda Blvd., #128, Van Nuys, CA 91405. 

According to Plaintiffs’ counsel, Stacey A. Miller, the Sepulveda address was listed on the lease agreement as Defendant Arushanyan’s address.  (Application, Miller Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A.)  Miller indicates that, on or about December 2, 2021, Arushanyan was served by substitute service at the Sepulveda address through his cousin and co-occupant.  (Id., ¶ 4.)  Miller provides that a writ of possession for the Vehicle was issued on or about April 4, 2022 and Plaintiffs instructed the Los Angeles County Sheriff to levy the Vehicle from Arushanyan at the Sepulveda address, but the sheriff was unable to levy the Vehicle after determining the location was locked and he was unable to gain entry.  (Id., ¶ 7, Ex. B.)  Miller states that Plaintiffs conducted a new person location search through Lexis Nexis on or about July 29, 2022 and the Sepulveda address was listed as Arushanyan’s most recent address on the search results.  (Id., ¶ 8, Ex. C.)  Plaintiffs also conducted a Google search of the Sepulveda address and found that, per Google Maps, the Sepulveda address is an apartment complex with underground parking which has gates blocking the entrances.  (Id., ¶ 9.) 

Plaintiffs have complied with CCP section 699.030(b) requirements.  Plaintiffs’ evidence is also sufficient to establish probable cause for the belief that the Vehicle is located at the Sepulveda address. 

Accordingly, the application is granted.