This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/09/2020 at 06:29:01 (UTC).

ALLY BANK, A CORPORATION VS ANTHONY GONSALVES, AN INDIVIDUAL

Case Summary

On 12/30/2019 ALLY BANK, A CORPORATION filed an Other lawsuit against ANTHONY GONSALVES, AN INDIVIDUAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1789

  • Filing Date:

    12/30/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ALLY BANK A CORPORATION

Defendant

GONSALVES AN INDIVIDUAL ANTHONY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

VANLOCHEM MICHAEL D

KRUGLIAK BENTZION D

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

9/24/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Memorandum (name extension) - Memorandum Deficiency Memo

9/24/2020: Memorandum (name extension) - Memorandum Deficiency Memo

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

9/24/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

9/24/2020: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

9/24/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/25/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration of Amanda Erickson in Support of Application for Writ of Possession

8/13/2020: Supplemental Declaration (name extension) - Supplemental Declaration of Amanda Erickson in Support of Application for Writ of Possession

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance

8/5/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance

Minute Order - Minute Order (APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF, ALLY BANK, FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION A...)

7/30/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF, ALLY BANK, FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION A...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance

5/1/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

2/14/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

1/22/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery) - Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery)

1/22/2020: Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery) - Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery)

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/30/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

12/30/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

12/30/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

12/30/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

12/30/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Plaintiff Ally Bank, a corporation against Defendant Anthony Gonsalves, an individual on the Complaint filed by Ally Bank, a corporation on 12/30/2019 for damages of $16,944.77, attorney fees of $898.34, and costs of $525.00 for a total of $18,368.11.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketJudgment Judgment; Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Anthony Gonsalves, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment: Name Extension: blank; Result Date changed from 09/28/2020 to 10/02/2020; As To Parties changed from Anthony Gonsalves, an individual (Defendant) to Anthony Gonsalves, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/02/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/03/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/02/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment Judgment: Filed By: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff); Result changed from Entered to Granted; Result Date: 09/28/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Anthony Gonsalves, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment; Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2020
  • DocketMemorandum Deficiency Memo; Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
22 More Docket Entries
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketApplication for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery); Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Anthony Gonsalves, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Application and Hearing for Claim and Delivery (CCP 512.030); Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/03/2023 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Anthony Gonsalves, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Anthony Gonsalves, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Anthony Gonsalves, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC11789    Hearing Date: August 25, 2020    Dept: 82

Ally Bank,

v.

Anthony Gonsalves,

Judge Mary Strobel

Hearing: August 25, 2020

19STLC11789

Tentative Decision on Application for Writ of Possession

Plaintiff Ally Bank (“Plaintiff”) seeks a writ of possession against Defendant Anthony Gonsalves (“Defendant”) over the following property: 2008 Mercedes-Benz S63, VIN # WDDNG77X38A205711(“Vehicle”).

Statement of the Case

According to Blong Vang, a replevin specialist and authorized representative for Plaintiff, Defendant entered into an Agreement regarding purchase of the Vehicle on or about July 18, 2016. Defendant failed to make payments required by the Agreement starting July 29, 2019. Defendant is in default under the Agreement, and Plaintiff seeks possession of the Vehicle after making demand for Defendant to surrender the Vehicle. (Vang Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exh. A-D.)

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed its complaint on December 30, 2019. Plaintiff filed its application for writ of possession on January 22, 2020.

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant with the summons, complaint, and application for writ of possession by personal service.

On April 14, 2020, based on conditions and orders related to the spread of Covid-19, the court continued the hearing on the application for writ of possession to July 30, 2020.

On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff mail-served notice of the continuance on Defendant.

No opposition has been received.

On July 30, 2020, the application came for hearing before the court. There was no appearance by Defendant. Court and counsel for Plaintiff conferred regarding the court’s tentative ruling. The court continued the hearing so that Plaintiff could file a supplemental declaration as to the authority of Plaintiff to proceed under the name Ally Bank.

On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration of Amanda Erickson. The declaration was served on Defendant on August 10, 2020. No response to the supplemental declaration from Defendant has been received.

Summary of Applicable Law

“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.” (CCP, § 512.010, subd. (a).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, subdivision (b), 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.

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. (Id., § 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.” (Id., § 512.040, subd. (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.” (Id., § 511.090.)

Prior to the issuance of a writ of possession, the Plaintiff must file an undertaking “in an amount not less than twice the value of the defendant's interest in the property or in a greater amount.” (Id., § 515.010, subd. (a).)

Analysis

1. Notice

Notice is adequate as stated above.

2. Basis of Plaintiff’s Claim

Plaintiff seeks a writ of possession based on its claim for claim and delivery. Vang represents that the seller of the Vehicle assigned its interest to Plaintiff in the sales contract. (Vang Decl. ¶ 5, Exh A.) The Agreement appears to show an assignment to “Ally” from the seller on or about July 18, 2016, when the Agreement was executed. (Ibid.) Attached to the Agreement is a Limited Power of Attorney appointing Ally Financial as attorney-in-fact for Plaintiff, including with respect to all retail installment sale contracts and the collateral securing such contracts.[1] (Ibid.) Vang authenticates a copy of Defendant’s payment history, which shows payments made on the Agreement from July 18, 2016, through June 29, 2019. (Id. Exh. D.) Considering the Agreement with other evidence in the record, including the Certificate of Title and evidence of payment to Plaintiff, there is sufficient evidence of a valid assignment. (See Id. ¶¶ 5-6, Exh. B, C, D.)

The court continued the hearing so that Plaintiff could explain why the action is taken under the name of Ally Bank, and not Ally Financial. On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a supplemental declaration of Amanda Erickson, a replevin specialist and authorized representative of Plaintiff. Erickson provides the following explanation: “After purchasing the retail installment sale contract from the dealership, Ally Bank designates its affiliate, Ally Financial Inc., to serve as its collateral agent and appear as lien holder on the Subject Vehicle's certificate of title for the benefit of the Plaintiff. Attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A’, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full is a true and correct copy of the assignment of Limited Power of Attorney from Ally Bank to Ally Financial Inc.” (Erickson Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) The Erickson declaration sufficiently supports that Plaintiff is the assignee and has standing to enforce the Agreement, even though Ally Financial, pursuant to the Limited Power of Attorney executed by Plaintiff, is listed as the lienholder on the Certificate of Title.

Vang declares that Defendant failed to make monthly payments required by the Agreement starting July 29, 2019, and that Defendant presently owes a principal sum of $16,944.77. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. C-D.) No opposition has been received to dispute this evidence. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff shows a probable validity of its claim.

3. Wrongful Detention

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, subdivision (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 Agreement, Plaintiff has the right to repossess the Vehicle in the event of default. (Vang Decl. Exh. A.) Plaintiff has made a showing that Defendant wrongfully detained the Vehicle after defaulting on the Agreement.

4. Description and Value of Property

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, subdivision (b)(3), the application must include a particular description of the property and a statement of its value.

Plaintiff has provided a particular description of the property, by make, model, and VIN number. Plaintiff has also given a statement as to value. (Appl. ¶ 4; Vang Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff therefore satisfies section 512.010, subdivision (b)(3).

5. Statutory Statements

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, subdivision (b)(4)-(5), the application must include:

(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.

Plaintiff has provided a statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to statute and has not been seized under an execution against the Plaintiff’s property.

Concerning location of the vehicle, Vang declares that Plaintiff’s file reflects that Defendant resides at 45382 Crystal Springs Dr., Indio, CA 92201. (Vang Decl. ¶ 10.) In reliance on that information, Vang states on information and belief that the Vehicle is located at that location. (Ibid.)

Because the application asks for an order permitting a levying officer to enter the Property and take possession of the Vehicle, Plaintiff must establish “probable cause” to believe that the Vehicle is located at the Property. (See CCP §§ 512.010, subd. (b)(4), 512.080.) Plaintiff has not submitted a declaration of any agents or repossessors that spotted the Vehicle at the stated location. The purchase agreement and Certificate of Title state Defendant’s address as 45382 Crystal Springs Dr., Indio, CA 92201. Plaintiff also sent a demand letter to that address. (Vang Decl. Exh. A-C.) Plaintiff also personally served Defendant with summons and complaint at 45382 Crystal Springs Dr., Indio, CA 92201. The proof of service is executed under penalty of perjury.

Considering all the evidence, the court finds sufficient probable cause to believe that the Vehicle is located at 45382 Crystal Springs Dr., Indio, CA 92201.

6. Undertaking

Code of Civil Procedure section 515.010 requires an undertaking to be filed before the writ issues in the amount of “not less than twice the value of the defendant’s interest in the property.” Plaintiff provides evidence that the amount owing on the Vehicle exceeds its market value. Thus, no undertaking is required.

Request to Take Evidence at Hearing

Plaintiff contends that there is good cause for oral testimony or other evidence at the hearing to show probable cause for the Vehicle’s location. (Points and Authorities 3, citing CCP § 512.050.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that an examination of Defendant would update the information of the Vehicle’s location. The court denies this request. Plaintiff does not show good cause to take oral testimony, which is also unnecessary because the court finds probable cause with respect to the Vehicle’s location.

Conclusion

The application is GRANTED.


[1] Consistent with the Power of Attorney, the Certificate of Title lists Ally Financial as the lienholder. (Id. Exh. B.)