Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00597, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22AHCV00597    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES, USA LLC,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

MARCOS AGUILAR,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  22AHCV00597

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

October 31, 2023

 

 

 

 

Plaintiff Mercedes-Benz Financial Services, USA LLC, by and through Daimler Title Company, (“Plaintiff”), previously sought a writ of possession against Defendant Marcos Aguilar, individually and dba A&B Auto Body Repair (“Defendant”) over the following property: a 2018 Mercedes with VIN No. WDDZH8KBXJA372346. (the “Property”). 

On September 13, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition brief and request for judicial notice.

On September 15, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application.

On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration requesting the Court amend its order to add that Plaintiff’s obligations for storage fees do not exceed $2,750. Plaintiff also requests the Court award $3,500 in attorneys’ fees in accordance of Civil Code section 3068 and Vehicle Code section 10652.5. Plaintiff submitted a proposed order concurrently with its motion. Plaintiff explains that these additional details are required in the order because Defendant continues to demand Plaintiff pay 4 months of additional storage fees and is threatening litigation.

As previously recounted by the Court, Defendant is in wrongful possession of the Property by continuing to demand more than $2,750 for storage fees (in addition to the cost of any repairs).  (Vehicle Code, § 3068, subd. (a)(2) [person with extinguished lien shall turn over possession of vehicle upon tender of amount owed by statute].) Therefore, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED insofar as the previously-issued order shall now specify that Plaintiff’s obligations for storage fees shall not exceed $2,750.

However, the Court finds it premature to declare Plaintiff a prevailing party because granting the application for writ of possession does not necessarily conclude the litigation. The statutes that Plaintiff cites to apply to “any action” brought by a legal owner of a motor vehicle and before the entry of judgment, there is technically no prevailing party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) After judgment, Plaintiff may move to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees as costs pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1033.5(b)(5).

Plaintiff’s request for fees is also substantively deficient.  The statutes cited by Plaintiff allow for the recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees” and Plaintiff’s motion presents no calculations which would allow the Court to use a lodestar method to determine whether $3,500 is a reasonable fee amount.

 

Dated this 31st day of October, 2023

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.