This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/30/2019 at 01:15:28 (UTC).

PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC VS. NICHOLAS SAN FILIPO

Case Summary

On 12/02/2016 PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against NICHOLAS SAN FILIPO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN P. PFAHLER. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7439

  • Filing Date:

    12/02/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN P. PFAHLER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES INC

Defendants

JD RECOVERY & TOWING LLC

SAN FILIPO NICHOLAS

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

THARPE & HOWELL

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

7/13/2018: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Related Case

7/13/2018: Notice of Related Case

Notice

11/13/2018: Notice

Declaration

11/13/2018: Declaration

Minute Order

12/17/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

12/17/2018: Unknown

Notice of Motion

4/2/2019: Notice of Motion

Declaration

4/2/2019: Declaration

Unknown

4/9/2019: Unknown

Writ of Execution

4/9/2019: Writ of Execution

Notice

5/8/2019: Notice

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/08/2019
  • Notice (of taking motion off calendar); Filed by PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Application for Issuance of Writ of Execution, Possession or Sale; Filed by PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Writ of Execution ((Los Angeles)); Filed by PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Declaration (DECLARATION OF STACEY A. MILLER, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASE PC057439 WITH CASE LC106090, THE FORMER BEING THE LEAD CASE); Filed by PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Notice of Motion; Filed by PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2018
  • at 2:55 PM in Department F49, Stephen P. Pfahler, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2018
  • Minute Order ((Court Order Re Notice of Related Case)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order Re Notice of Related Case) of 12/17/2018); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2018
  • Notice (of Related Case); Filed by PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2018
  • Declaration (Re Filing of Notice of Related Cases); Filed by PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 03/14/2017
  • Stipulation and Order; Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2017
  • Application for Order to Publish; Filed by NICHOLAS SAN FILIPO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • at 00:00 AM in Department Legacy; (Request to Enter Default; OTHER:) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2017
  • at 00:00 AM in Department Legacy; (Request to Enter Default; ENTERED) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2017
  • Default Entered; Filed by PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2016
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2016
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: PC057439    Hearing Date: April 19, 2021    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Calendar # 4

Date: 4-19-21

Case #PC057439

Trial Date: N/A

REISSUE TITLE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Porsche Financial Services, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, California Department of Motor Vehicles

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Reissue Title on a Vehicle Reinstating Porsche Financial Services, Inc. as a Lienholder

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On February 12, 2015, Defendants San Filipo and JD Recovery & Towing, LLC entered into a retail installment sales contract for the purchase of a 2011 Porsche Panamera 4 vehicle with financing provided by Plaintiff Porsche Financial Services, Inc. The agreement required 60 monthly payments of $962.42/month. On September 29, 2016, Defendants defaulted on the loan, thereby leaving an outstanding balance of $37,697.53.

On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint for possession of personal property, deficiency judgment, foreclosure of security interest, breach of express written contract, money lent, and account stated. On February 17, 2017, Plaintiff substituted the California Department of Motor Vehicles for Doe 1. On July 27, 2017, the court entered a default judgment against San Filipo and JD Recovery & Towing, LLC for $44,763.42.

On December 17, 2018, the court deemed the subject case related to LC106090.

On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to Department of Motor Vehicles.

RULING: Granted

Plaintiff moves for an order to compel the Department of Motor Vehicles to restore Plaintiff as the registered lien holder of the vehicle. Plaintiff relies on the authority of Vehicle Code section 5600 and 8800. Section 5600 states in part:

a) No transfer of the title or any interest in or to a vehicle registered under this code shall pass, and any attempted transfer shall not be effective, until the parties thereto have fulfilled either of the following requirements:

(1) The transferor has made proper endorsement and delivery of the certificate of ownership to the transferee as provided in this code and the transferee has delivered to the department or has placed the certificate in the United States mail addressed to the department when and as required under this code with the proper transfer fee, together with the amount required to be paid under Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001), Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the use by the transferee of the vehicle, and thereby makes application for a transfer of registration except as otherwise provided in Sections 590559065907, and 5908.

(2) The transferor has delivered to the department or has placed in the United States mail addressed to the department the appropriate documents for the registration or transfer of registration of the vehicle pursuant to the sale or transfer except as provided in Section 5602.

Section 8800 further provides:

“(a) The department may suspend, cancel, or revoke the registration of a vehicle or a certificate of ownership, registration card, license plate, or permit under any of the following circumstances:

(1) When the department is satisfied that the registration or the certificate, card, plate, or permit was fraudulently obtained or erroneously issued…

(6) When the registration could have been refused when last issued or renewed.”

Plaintiff relies on the claim that Department of Motor Vehicles improperly allowed removal of its lien and/or transfer of title to a third party. The declaration of Miller presents an August 1, 2019 copy of an e-mail showing that DMV agreed to refrain from removing a “VLT stop” from the vehicle until DMV confirms with Plaintiff. [Declaration of Miller, ¶ 18, Ex. F.]

It’s not clear from the motion or declaration why Plaintiff was required to dismiss DMV, a government entity, in order to obtain “repossession title.” [Miller Decl., ¶ 18.] Plaintiff offers no legal authority for this requirement other than the declaration. The motion also lacks a source of authority for a court order compelling DMV to change registration (e.g. a mandamus).

Nevertheless, in considering the application, the court finds the declaration of Miller sufficiently establishes the rightful claim. Plaintiff maintains that DMV allowed for said transfer to a third party due to “clerical error,” but there is no documentation from DMV. [Miller Decl., ¶¶ 22-23.] While the court declines to issue an order directly to DMV for action without any cited authority, the court, in its equitable power, agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to assert its lien hold interest in the vehicle. (See Curtin v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 481, 485.)

The court therefore grants the motion acknowledging the lien hold interest in the vehicle, which Plaintiff can presumably present to DMV for an alteration of title. Plaintiff may alternatively request a continuance of the hearing for support of the argument regarding the inadequacy of this remedy, and therefore the necessity of a court order against the Department of Motor Vehicles. Any such request will require authority of the court to issue a mandamus order for this relief.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES. INC. is a litigant