What is a claim opposing forfeiture of motor vehicles?

Useful Rulings on Claim Opposing Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles

Recent Rulings on Claim Opposing Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles

FRANCISCA EUGENIA NUNEZ VS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Section 16070(b) provides, in pertinent part: “Whenever the department receives an accident report … that alleges that any of the drivers involved in the accident was not in compliance with Section 16020 at the time of the accident, the department shall immediately mail to that driver a notice of intent to suspend the driving privilege of that driver.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JUSTIN CONRAD CLAVERIA VS STEVEN GORDON, DIRECTOR, CA DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

If you refuse to submit to or fail to complete the required chemical test, your driving privilege will be suspended for a year or revoked for two or three years. 4. Refusal or failure to complete the required chemical test could be used against you in court and will also result in a fine and imprisonment if your arrest results in a conviction of driving under the influence. 5.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JAYME S. HENSON V. STEVEN GORDON

(d) [requiring for administrative suspension or revocation that “the person had been told that his or her driving privilege would be suspended or revoked if he or she refused to submit to, or did not complete, the test or tests].)

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2020

MARYAM PANOSYAN, ET AL. VS HRANT ELIASYAN, ET AL.

In opposition, Plaintiffs appear to argue Enterprise gave permission to Eliasyan to drive the vehicle without a proper background check, a proper license, an international driving permit, and/or a valid driving privilege, and did not offer Eliasyan the option of purchasing adequate insurance. (Opposition, pg. 4.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

GARCIA VS. STEVE GORDON, AS DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Petition for Writ filed by Petitioner Andres Garcia: The petition by Andres Gustavo Garcia for writ of mandate requiring respondent Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) to set aside or revoke its order dated 11/27/19, revoking petitioner’s driving privilege effective 12/06/19 through 12/05/22, and for attorney’s fees and costs, is DENIED. Petitioner’s unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

OUT OF THE BOX GROUP, INC. VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Terms of the Insurance Policy The policy in relevant part reads as follows: “Covered Vehicle is changed to read: a. Covered Vehicle means l. your car, [Not Applicable] 2. a newly acquired car, 3. a temporary substitute car, and 4. a camper that is designed to be mounted on a pickup truck and is shown on the Declarations Page. [Not Applicable]” (Billings Decl., Ex. A, Section 6030GF, pg. 3.) Defendant argues that the vehicle is not a newly acquired car.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL VS SERGIO LOPEZ

The Court notes that under subdivision (c) of section 10751, however, Respondents are to be provided with notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing. (Cal. Veh. Code, § 10751, subd. (c).) The Petition indicates that Respondents were notified of these proceedings and that proof of notice has been filed herein. (Pet., ¶4.) At the initial hearing, the Court noted that proof of service of the notice of hearing was not filed. A proof of service was thereafter filed on November 7, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL VS SERGIO LOPEZ

However, the Court notes that under California Vehicle Code section 10751, subdivision (c), Respondents are to be provided with notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing. (Cal. Veh. Code, § 10751, subd. (c).) The Petition indicates that Respondents were notified of these proceedings and that proof of notice has been filed herein. (Pet., ¶4.) No such proof of service, however, has been attached to the Petition or filed with the Court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PEDERSEN V. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Petition of Rebekah Rae Pedersen for Alternative Writ of Mandate to Set Aside Suspension of Driving Privilege: Is Suspension of Pederson License Supported by the Weight of the Evidence? The only issue here is whether Officer Annett’s conclusion that Pederson was driving with a BAC of .08% or more is supported by the weight of the evidence. All other arguments are subsumed by that question. Is the finding that Pederson was driving with a BAC of .08% or more supported by the weight of the evidence?

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

HOLLY WRIGHT, ET AL. V. PAUL ALEXANDER DASILVA, ET AL.

On information and belief, plaintiffs allege defendant DaSilva has a driving record preceding this collision which includes multiple DUIs, reckless driving, multiple accidents, and revocation(s) and/or suspension(s) of his driving privilege and defendant DaSilva Farms knew of DaSilva’s driving record. (FAC, ¶¶25 and 30.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

ANDREIA FUZON VS DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Hearing Officer’s Decision ordered re-imposition of the suspension of Fuzon’s driving privilege. AR 8. E. Analysis Petitioner Fuzon seeks a writ of mandate compelling Respondent DMV to set aside its decision suspending her driving privilege. 1. Procedural Issues The DMV asserts that the court should deny Fuzon’s Petition on the ground that it was untimely filed. Opp. at 14.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MICHAEL MCNEAL VS CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD ET AL

Suspension, revocation, or restrictions to an employee's driving privilege which prohibit the employee from performing any of their job duties, shall be reported to the institution head or appropriate director/assistant secretary. An employee shall also report any change in eligibility to own, possess and have custody/control of any firearm or other weapon authorized by the department. 15 CCR §3411. D. Statement of Facts 1. Background McNeal began employment as a Correctional Officer in April 2008.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HARRIS KENT NEWMARK VS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

The Hearing Officer’s Decision ordered the re-imposition of the suspension of Newmark’s driving privilege. AR 4. E. Analysis Petitioner Newmark seeks a writ of mandate compelling Respondent DMV to set aside its decision suspending Newmark’s driving privilege. (1) Whether the Peace Officer Had Reasonable Cause to Believe the Person Had Been Driving a Motor Vehicle in Violation of Section 23152 Newmark does not dispute that Pedroza had reasonable cause to believe that Newmark was DUI.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ADAMS VS. DIRECTOR FOR THE DMV

REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER’S LICENSE If a person refuses the officer’s request to submit to, or fails to complete a chemical test or tests, the department shall suspend the person’s driving privilege for one year or revoke the person’s privilege for two or three years depending on the violations and the person’s history of suspension. (Cal. Vehicle Code § 13353.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2019

BIBLER V. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Petition of Jeffrey Patrick Bibler for Alternative Writ of Mandate CCP § 1094.5 and Vehicle Code § 13559 to Set Aside Suspension of Driving Privilege: The Petition for Writ of Mandate brought by Petitioner Jeffrey Patrick Bibler, pursuant to C.C.P. §1094.5, is DENIED, as the court finds the weight of the evidence supports the Administrative findings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

., himself), or a covered vehicle. The Court provided Plaintiff an opportunity to explain at the hearing whether he could remedy these problems, but ultimately concluded he could not, and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. On January 17, 2018, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its order sustaining the demurrer to the first three causes of action without leave to amend. The court ordered Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint within 15 days.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BIBLER V. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Petition of Jeffrey Patrick Bibler for Alternative Writ of Mandate CCP § 1094.5 and Vehicle Code § 13559 to Set Aside Suspension of Driving Privilege: A full bates-stamped Administrative Record could not be located within the filings in this action. While Notices of Lodging were filed by Petitioner on May 22, 2019 and June 17, 2019, these documents appear to be incomplete, as none contain the testimony offered at the Administrative hearing, as cited by Respondent and generally referenced by Petitioner.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

CERLETTI VS. YOUNG

It is uncontested that the Expedition was not named as a covered vehicle in Teague’s policy. Teague’s policy could potentially cover accidents involving another vehicle, but only if it was her “insured auto, a replacement auto, or a temporary substitute auto”. The Expedition was not the “insured auto”, which was her Suzuki. Neither was it a “replacement auto”, since Teague still owned the Suzuki at the time of the accident.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2019

PERRY WILLIAMS VS CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD ET AL

Suspension, revocation, or restrictions to an employee's driving privilege which prohibit the employee from performing any of their job duties, shall be reported to the institution head or appropriate director/assistant secretary. An employee shall also report any change in eligibility to own, possess and have custody/control of any firearm or other weapon authorized by the department. 15 CCR §3411. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2019

DANIEL GRAYBILL VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Graybill’s driving privilege was suspended effective June 25, 2018. It advised Mr. Graybill that before he could be reinstated after June 24, 2019, he would need to file proof of financial responsibility and pay a $125 fee. ANALYSIS: The Petition for Writ of Mandate is denied, and the temporary suspension of petitioner’s driving privilege is dissolved.

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2019

LOPEZ VS JEAN SHIOMOTO DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

A person must be told that his failure to submit to a chemical testing will result in a one-year suspension of the person's driving privilege. (Vehicle Code section 23612(a)(1)(D).)

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

LOPEZ VS JEAN SHIOMOTO DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

A person must be told that his failure to submit to a chemical testing will result in a one-year suspension of the person's driving privilege. (Vehicle Code section 23612(a)(1)(D).)

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

LOPEZ VS JEAN SHIOMOTO DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

A person must be told that his failure to submit to a chemical testing will result in a one-year suspension of the person's driving privilege. (Vehicle Code section 23612(a)(1)(D).)

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

LOPEZ VS JEAN SHIOMOTO DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

A person must be told that his failure to submit to a chemical testing will result in a one-year suspension of the person's driving privilege. (Vehicle Code section 23612(a)(1)(D).)

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

ANCHUNEE THANGBHANDIT VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF M

The Decision On May 9, 2018, the hearing officer issued a decision upholding the suspension of Thangbhandit’s driving privilege. AR 5.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

1 2 3 4     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.