This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/24/2020 at 16:08:29 (UTC).

ALLY BANK, A CORPORATION VS CARLOS SANFOMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/12/2019 ALLY BANK, A CORPORATION filed an Other lawsuit against CARLOS SANFOMAN, 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 WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5619

  • Filing Date:

    06/12/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ALLY BANK A CORPORATION

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

SANFOMAN AN INDIVIDUAL CARLOS

SERVANTES AN INDIVIDUAL ARMANDO

PQS SEAFOOD CO. INC. A CORPORATION

Defendants and Cross Defendants

SERVANTES AN INDIVIDUAL ARMANDO

PQS SEAFOOD CO. INC. A CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BURSTEIN ARDEN D.

VANLOCHEM MICHAEL DONALD

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

CADRY RYAN

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/22/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

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

7/16/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF, ALLY BANK, FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION A...)

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

6/4/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/19/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition To Application For Writ Of Possession

7/2/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition To Application For Writ Of Possession

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

5/5/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

4/7/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

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

3/13/2020: Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery) - Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery)

Notice of Application and Hearing for Claim and Delivery (CCP 512.030) - Notice of Application and Hearing for Claim and Delivery (CCP 512.030)

3/13/2020: Notice of Application and Hearing for Claim and Delivery (CCP 512.030) - Notice of Application and Hearing for Claim and Delivery (CCP 512.030)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

3/13/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

3/3/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

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

2/13/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Answer - Answer

12/11/2019: Answer - Answer

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

10/24/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

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

7/8/2019: Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery) - Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery)

Notice of Application and Hearing for Claim and Delivery (CCP 512.030) - Notice of Application and Hearing for Claim and Delivery (CCP 512.030)

7/8/2019: Notice of Application and Hearing for Claim and Delivery (CCP 512.030) - Notice of Application and Hearing for Claim and Delivery (CCP 512.030)

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

7/8/2019: Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery) - Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery)

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/12/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

32 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/15/2022
  • Hearing06/15/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2020
  • Hearing12/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketAddress for Michael Donald VanLochem (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Michael Donald VanLochem (Attorney): First Name changed from ARDEN to Michael; Last Name changed from BURSTEIN to VanLochem; Organization Name: VanLochem & Associates LLP; Middle Name changed from D. to Donald

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • DocketAddress for Michael Donald VanLochem (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF, ALLY BANK, FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION A...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • DocketHearing on Application for Writ of Possession (CCP 512.010) scheduled for 07/16/2020 at 01:30 PM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 82 updated: Result Date to 07/16/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Carlos San Roman Erroneously Sued As Carlos Sanfoman, an individual (Defendant); As to: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff); Armando Servantes, an individual (Defendant); PQS Seafood Co., Inc., a corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2020
  • DocketOpposition To Application For Writ Of Possession; Filed by: Carlos San Roman Erroneously Sued As Carlos Sanfoman, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
46 More Docket Entries
  • 07/08/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • DocketNotice of Application and Hearing for Claim and Delivery (CCP 512.030); Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/15/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Carlos Sanfoman, an individual (Defendant); Armando Servantes, an individual (Defendant); PQS Seafood Co., Inc., a corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Carlos Sanfoman, an individual (Defendant); Armando Servantes, an individual (Defendant); PQS Seafood Co., Inc., a corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Ally Bank, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Carlos Sanfoman, an individual (Defendant); Armando Servantes, an individual (Defendant); PQS Seafood Co., Inc., a corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC05619    Hearing Date: July 16, 2020    Dept: 82

Ally Bank, a corporation

v.

PQS Seafood, Co., Inc., et al.,

Judge Mary H. Strobel

Hearing: July 16, 2020

19STLC05619

Tentative Decision on Applications for Writ of Possession

Plaintiff Ally Bank (“Plaintiff”) seeks a writ of possession against Defendants PQS Seafood, Inc., Armando Cervantes, and Carlos San Roman (“Defendants”) over the following property: 2014 Ford Econoline, VIN # 1FTNS2EW5EDA83904 (“Vehicle”).

Statement of the Case

According to Blong Vang, a replevin specialist and custodian of records for Plaintiff, Defendant PQS Seafood, Inc. (“PQS”) entered into an Agreement regarding purchase of the Vehicle. Defendant San Roman executed a third-party guaranty. Defendant Cervantes is the owner of PQS. Defendants PQS and San Roman failed to make payments required by the Agreement starting December 4, 2018. Defendants PQS and San Roman are in default under the Agreement, and Plaintiff seeks possession of the Vehicle after making demand for Defendants to surrender the Vehicle. (Vang Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Exh. A-D.)

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed its complaint on June 12, 2019.

Plaintiff filed its applications for writ of possession on July 8, 2019.

On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed proof of substitute service on July 31, 2019, of the summons, complaint, application for writ of possession, and notice of hearing on Defendant “Servantes.”

On October 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed proof of substitute service on October 20, 2019, of the summons, complaint, application for writ of possession, and notice of hearing on Defendant “Sanfoman.”

In the cross-complaint and answer, filed December 11, 2019, Defendant San Roman indicates that he was erroneously sued as “Carlos Sanfoman.” He also sues Defendant Armando “Cervantes,” and not “Servantes,” referring to the same person. For consistency, the court uses the name spellings used by San Roman in the cross-complaint, which appear to be the correct spellings.

On October 29, 2019, the court (Judge Daniel Murphy) denied Plaintiff’s application for writ of possession. The court stated that Defendants PQS Seafood and San Roman were served by substitute service and the time to respond had not yet expired. As to Defendant Cervantes, the court found that Plaintiff had not submitted evidence he was a party to the agreement or executed the guarantee and there was no probable cause that he was in possession of the Vehicle. In addition, Plaintiff did not submit sufficient evidence of the location of the Vehicle.

On December 11, 2019, Defendant San Roman filed a cross-complaint and answer.

On February 13, 2020, the court entered Defendant Cervantes’ default on the cross-complaint filed by Defendant San Roman.

On March 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant applications for writ of possession and supporting papers.

On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed proof of service of summons, complaint, and the writ of possession papers by substitute service on Defendant “Sanroman” on March 18, 2020.

On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed proof of service of summons, complaint, and the writ of possession papers by substitute service on Defendant “Armando Servantes” on March 22, 2020.

On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed proof of service of summons, complaint, and the writ of possession papers by substitute service on Defendant PQS Seafood Co., Inc. on April 13, 2020.

On July 2, 2020, Defendant San Roman filed an opposition to the application for writ of possession.

No opposition has been received from Defendants Cervantes or PQS Seafood, Inc.

No reply has been received. The reply was due July 14, 2020.

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.) “If the defendant has not appeared in the action, and a writ, notice, order, or other paper is required to be personally served on the defendant under this title, service shall be made in the same manner as a summons is served under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5.” (Id. § 512.030(b).)

“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 of Applications for Writ of Possession

Notice is adequate with respect to Defendant San Roman, who has filed an answer and opposition.

The validity of service of the summons, complaint, and applications is questionable with respect to Defendants Cervantes and PQS Seafood, Inc. On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed proof of substitute service on July 31, 2019, of the summons, complaint, October 2019 application for writ of possession, and notice of hearing on Defendant “Servantes.” The service address was listed as 6322 Vineland Ave., Apt. 2, North Hollywood, CA 91606.

On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed proof of service of summons, complaint, and the instant writ of possession papers by substitute service on Defendant “Armando Servantes” on March 22, 2020. The service address was listed as 10855 Leffingwell Road, Norwalk, CA 90650.

On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed proof of service of summons, complaint, and the instant writ of possession papers by substitute service on Defendant PQS Seafood Co., Inc. on April 13, 2020. The service address was listed as 1902 8th Ave., Oakland, CA 94606. The agent for service of process was listed as Armando Cervantes. The documents were delivered to Jorge Gomez, co-occupant. According to the declaration of diligence, on April 13, 2020, Gomez “did confirm the subject/company does live here and he will give the documents to the subject.”

The proofs of service indicate that Cervantes resided, in March and April 2020, in both Oakland, CA and Norwalk, CA. While not impossible, this seems unlikely. Moreover, in a declaration dated January 24, 2020, Blong Vang declares that Cervantes’ place of employment is 4805 N. Midsite Ave., Covina, CA 91722 and that Cervantes resides at 10855 Leffingwell Road, Norwalk, CA 90650. (Blong Decl. ¶ 10.) Blong did not describe Cervantes as working or residing in Oakland, CA.

Based on the foregoing, there appears to be an error in the proof of service with respect to PQS Seafood, for which Cervantes was listed as the agent for process in Oakland on April 13, 2020, and/or in the proof of service with respect to Cervantes, which showed him residing in Norwalk on March 22, 2020.

2. Untimely Opposition

On July 2, 2020, Defendant San Roman filed an opposition to the application for writ of possession. While the opposition should have been served by July 9, 2020, Plaintiff has not objected to the late filed opposition. Absent objection, the court considers the opposition.

3. Probable Validity

Plaintiff seeks a writ of possession based on its cause of action for claim and delivery. In that cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants PQS and San Roman defaulted on the Agreement, and Plaintiff seeks to enforce its security interest. (Compl. ¶¶ 6-11.)

Blong Vang is a replevin specialist for Plaintiff and oversees the account of PQS Seafood Co., Inc. Vang declares that San Roman signed a third-party guaranty. Vang does not describe the execution of the Agreement under which the Vehicle was sold to PQS. Rather, Vang purports to authenticate copies “of the Contract and Third Party Guaranty (‘Contract’) owned by Plaintiff pursuant to an assignment.” (Vang Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Exhibit A to Vang’s declaration is hardly legible. The copy of the Agreement attached to the unverified complaint is legible and shows a purchase transaction between PQS and South Bay Ford. The Agreement appears to show an assignment from South Bay Ford to an assignee, the name of which is handwritten and difficult to read. From context, including from corporate resolutions attached to the Agreement, it is possible that the handwritten name of the assignee was “Ally.” (Ibid.) Vang also authenticates a certificate of title showing the lienholder for the Vehicle as “Ally Fncl.” (Id. Exh. B.) Vang also authenticates a purported payment history. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. D.)

Vang does not show personal knowledge regarding execution or assignment of the Agreement. The copy that Vang authenticates is partly illegible and does not sufficiently show, absent some clarification from a knowledgeable person, an assignment to Plaintiff. San Roman’s guaranty is based on the alleged assignment. In his opposition, San Roman admits to executing a third-party guaranty. However, San Roman provides no evidence regarding an assignment to Plaintiff.

Given these deficiencies in the evidence, Plaintiff has not shown a probable validity of its claims against all three Defendants.

4. Basis of Plaintiff’s Claim / Wrongful Detention

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, subdivision (b)(1), the application must include a showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed.

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.”

Plaintiff’s right to possession of the Vehicle depends on its causes of action against PQS, Cervantes, and San Roman. Plaintiff has not shown the probable validity of such claims. Even if the court assumes the guarantee was properly assigned to Plaintiff, the guarantee is for payment of money. San Roman asserts he never had possession of the vehicle. Plaintiff presents no contrary evidence.

As to Cervantes, other than unsubstantiated hearsay, Plaintiff does not provide evidence Cervantes is in possession of the vehicle.

As to PQS, service of its agent for service of process appears defective.

5. 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).

6. 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.

Regarding the location of the Vehicle, Vang states the following: “After he was served with this lawsuit, defendant Sanroman advised Ally that the vehicle is now in possession of Servantes. Defendant Sanroman also hired a private investigator to monitor where the vehicle is located. That private investigator advised Ally that the vehicle has been seen at 4805 N. Midsite Ave., Covina, CA 91722, which is Servantes' place of employment and also at 10855 2 Leffingwell Rd., Norwalk, CA 90650, where Defendant Servantes resides. In reliance upon the information contained in the file and computer system of Plaintiff pertaining to the subject motor vehicle and the private investigator's report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the current location of the subject motor vehicle is as follows: 10855 Leffingwell Rd., Norwalk, CA 90650 or 4805 N. Midsite Ave. , Covina, CA 91722.” (Vang Decl. ¶ 10.)

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 locations. Plaintiff relies on hearsay statements of San Roman’s investigator. The Agreement, which is hardly legible, does not appear to show either of the stated addresses. Neither does the certificate of title.

Plaintiff has not shown probable cause to believe the Vehicle is located at the stated addresses.

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.) The court denies this request. Plaintiff has not satisfied the other requirements for writ of possession and has not shown good cause for oral testimony.

Conclusion

The applications are DENIED.