Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2022-01289850, Date: 2022-11-29 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s (Essan Sahel) Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction filed as an Ex Parte Application (Application) on 11-8-22 under ROA No. 13, is GRANTED.

“In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a trial court must evaluate two interrelated factors: (i) the likelihood that the party seeking the injunction will ultimately prevail on the merits of his [or her] claim, and (ii) the balance of harm presented, i.e., the comparative consequences of the issuance and nonissuance of the injunction. [Citations.]” (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 441-442; footnote 7 omitted.) “A trial court deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction weighs two interrelated factors—the likelihood the moving party will prevail on the merits at trial and the relative balance of the interim harms that are likely to result from the granting or denial of preliminary injunctive relief. [Citations.]” (County of Kern v. T.C.E.F., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 301, 315 (County of Kern); Italics in County of Kern.) “These two showings operate on a sliding scale: ‘[T]he more likely it is that [the party seeking the injunction] will ultimately prevail, the less severe must be the harm that they allege will occur if the injunction does not issue.’ [Citation.]” (Integrated Dynamic Solutions, Inc. v. VitaVet Labs, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1183.)

Plaintiff moves for “A preliminary injunction forbidding Defendant PALLADIUM AUTO LEASING, LLC (‘PAL’), any other defendant to this action (including their agents, servants, officers, employees, partners, representatives, or any others acting in concert therewith), or any other person or entity in actual or constructive possession of that certain 2020 Lamborghini Aventador (VIN #ZHWUN6ZD0LLA09838) giving rise to this action (the ‘Vehicle’), from transferring title to or otherwise dispossessing themselves of the Vehicle.” (Application; 1:4-9.)

Specially Appearing Defendant’s (Palladium Auto Leasing, LLC) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on 11-16-22 under ROA No. 44, states, “PAL respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Request for a Preliminary Injunction as (1) the issue is moot because PAL sold the Vehicle on November 7, 2022; (2) PAL never received any consideration nor entered into a written vehicle agreement under Uniform Commercial Code § 2201 with Plaintiff, and Defendants WE and Mr. Simon for the purchase of the Vehicle; and, (3) Plaintiff’s remedy is to pursue the broker because Plaintiff alleges WE and Mr. Simon were the broker who did not remit the funds to effectuate a valid agreement.” (Opposition; 2:16-21.)

The declaration in support of the Opposition provides the following evidence: (1) ““PAL has not engaged in one retail vehicle sale with Michael Simon and/or WHOLESALE EXOTICS (“WE”), INC. because neither Mr. Simon nor WE have a California retail vehicle dealer license to sell to an individual like Plaintiff Ehsan Sahel.” (Thorpe Decl., ¶ 8.); (2) “After a reasonable inquiry with PAL employees, no one at PAL made an agreement to sell Plaintiff the Lamborghini on the day in question, being on or around September 6, 2022.” (Thorpe Decl., ¶ 16.) (3) “Also, after a reasonable inquiry with our staff at PAL, no one at PAL agreed to have WE broker a retail sale of the Lamborghini as no agreement for the sale terms was reached or finalized.” (Thorpe Decl., ¶ 17.); and (4) “On November 7, 2022, PAL sold the Lamborghini for $ 640,000 and two other vehicles to the same third-party purchaser. Attached hereto as Exhibit ‘3’ is a true correct copy of the 11-7-2022 DMV Vehicle/Vessel Transfer And Reassignment Form to show PAL as the legal owner (Lienholder) sold the Lamborghini to Rad Motorworks.” (Thorpe Decl., ¶ 20.)

Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Reply), filed on 11-18-22 under ROA No. 52, asserts, “In reality, PAL did receive consideration for the agreement in the form of Simon’s promise to pay him for the Vehicle and his provision of a ‘hold’ check to Thorpe after Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle and took possession of same. Simon’s later inability to fulfill his promise might constitute a breach of contract between Simon and PAL, but does not constitute a failure of consideration and contract formation. PAL knew the Vehicle had been sold to Plaintiff, and indeed voluntarily delivered possession to Plaintiff.” (Reply, 6:8-13.)

At this stage of the proceedings, the 11-8-22 declarations of Plaintiff (Essan Sahel) and Michael Simon, are sufficient to demonstrate that Plaintiff has a probability of prevailing on the merits as to the conversion cause of action for the purpose of issuing a preliminary injunction.  Plaintiff’s evidence indicates that there was an agreement for Defendant to sell the Lamborghini to Plaintiff through Wholsale Exotics, Inc. (WE). (11-8-22 Sahel Decl., ¶¶ 3-8; 11-8-22 Simon Decl., ¶¶ 3-17.)  Plaintiff’s evidence shows that this agreement resulted in the delivery of the Lamborghini to Plaintiff. (11-8-22 Sahel Decl., ¶¶ 9-12.)  Although Defendant indicates that it has sold the Lamborghini, Defendant has not provided evidence of an actual payment from a third-party for the purchase of the Lamborghini.

Thus, at a minimum, the court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing Plaintiff’s claim for conversion.    The balance of interim harms favors Plaintiff because Plaintiff does not currently possess the Lamborghini and paid $684,583.25 to WE. (Sahel Decl., ¶ 7), and Defendant’s evidence does not sufficiently show how a preliminary injunction will harm Defendant.

Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s (Essan Sahel) Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction filed as an Ex Parte Application on 11-8-22 under ROA No. 13.

Plaintiff is to give notice.