What is a claim opposing forfeiture of motor vehicles?

Useful Resources for Claim Opposing Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles

Recent Rulings on Claim Opposing Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles

NANCY SEILER VS STEVEN GORDON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

The Decision ordered re-imposition of the suspension of Seiler’s driving privilege effective April 15, 2020 through April 14, 2021. AR 3, 5. E. Analysis Petitioner Seiler seeks a writ of mandate compelling the DMV to set aside its decision suspending her driving privilege based on two arguments: (1) she lacked the capacity to consent to a chemical test and (2) she was not properly admonished of the consequences of refusing to submit to a test as required by section 23612. 1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KORTH VS. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

The court’s 10/14/2020 minute order is vacated to the extent it mandated that Respondent set aside its 06/16/2020 Order of Suspension of Petitioner’s driving privilege or, in the alternative, show good cause why it has done so is hereby vacated. Petitioner is ordered to give notice. Clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

(1) The owner of the covered vehicle and we must agree upon the actual cash value of the covered vehicle. (ROA 58, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff claims that he never agreed to an "actual cash value" (or ACV) number for the vehicle in question. Accordingly, Plaintiff is alleging that his vehicle could not be bought out for the "actual cash value" and, instead, the Insurance Company was obligated to pay for repairs to the vehicle (less any deductible).

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

(1) The owner of the covered vehicle and we must agree upon the actual cash value of the covered vehicle. (ROA 58, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff claims that he never agreed to an "actual cash value" (or ACV) number for the vehicle in question. Accordingly, Plaintiff is alleging that his vehicle could not be bought out for the "actual cash value" and, instead, the Insurance Company was obligated to pay for repairs to the vehicle (less any deductible).

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

(1) The owner of the covered vehicle and we must agree upon the actual cash value of the covered vehicle. (ROA 58, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff claims that he never agreed to an "actual cash value" (or ACV) number for the vehicle in question. Accordingly, Plaintiff is alleging that his vehicle could not be bought out for the "actual cash value" and, instead, the Insurance Company was obligated to pay for repairs to the vehicle (less any deductible).

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOHNSON V. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INS. CO., ET AL.

Defendant presents undisputed evidence of Plaintiff’s breach of the cooperation clause by her refusal to produce the requested cellphone records, consumer information, release for the consumer information, and documents pertaining to the purchase or lease of the covered vehicle (UMF 6-16).

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

CONKEY VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE

(1) The owner of the covered vehicle and we must agree upon the actual cash value of the covered vehicle. (ROA 58, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff claims that he never agreed to an "actual cash value" (or ACV) number for the vehicle in question. Accordingly, Plaintiff is alleging that his vehicle could not be bought out for the "actual cash value" and, instead, the Insurance Company was obligated to pay for repairs to the vehicle (less any deductible).

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DAMIAN GONZALEZ-MENDEZ VS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MR. STEVEN GORDON, ET AL.

The Decision ordered re-imposition of the suspension of Mendez’s driving privilege effective May 27, 2020 through May 26, 2022. AR 2, 4. E. Analysis Petitioner Mendez seeks a writ of mandate compelling the DMV to set aside its decision suspending his driving privilege. Mendez argues that the finding that he was driving is not supported by the evidence and that the Hearing Officer improperly excluded evidence and denied a continuance, thereby denying Mendez a fair hearing. 1.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KORTH VS. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

No later than 11/30/20, Respondent shall set aside its 06/16/2020 Order of Suspension of Petitioner’s driving privilege or, in the alternative, show good cause why it has done so. Petitioner is ordered serve on Respondent written notice of the time and place of the hearing, a copy of the petition, all papers on which the petition is based, and this Minute Order, at least 16 court days prior to the date of the hearing if service is personal and additional time if service is achieved by other means.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

GOLDEN COAST CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION INC. VS. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

It would frustrate the legitimate intention to postpone suspension or revocation of the driving privilege until conclusion of thefrequentlydelayed judicial proceedings." {Id. at 454.) So, too, in this case. As the Savoy court noted, "Licensing procedures have been set up . . . to protect the public from unfit practitioners. When a license is revoked, it is done primarily to protect society, not to punish the licensee." {Savoy, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at 1039.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

GOLDEN COAST CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION INC. VS. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

It would frustrate the legitimate intention to postpone suspension or revocation of the driving privilege until conclusion of the frequently delayed judicial proceedings.” (Id. at 454.) So, too, in this case. As the Savoy court noted, “Licensing procedures have been set up . . . to protect the public from unfit practitioners. When a license is revoked, it is done primarily to protect society, not to punish the licensee.” (Savoy, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at 1039.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

TIMOTHY BARKER, ET AL. VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Overview of Vehicle Code sections 14602.6, 22852, 22651 and the CHP Policy Vehicle Code section 14602.6, subdivision (a)(1) states: “(a)(1) Whenever a peace officer determines that a person was driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege was suspended or revoked, driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege is restricted pursuant to Section 13352 or 23575 and the vehicle is not equipped with a functioning, certified interlock device, or driving a vehicle without ever having been issued a driver's

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF: LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TASKFORCE FOR REGIONAL AUTOTHEFT PREVENTION

Code, § 10751, subds. (e)(2) and (e)(3).) Conclusion No tentative ruling to issue at this time. Ruling to depend on what happens at the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANNA VLADIMIROVNA KUZNETSOVA VS ROPER N. NOLASCO

The Decision re-imposed the suspension of Kuznetsova’s driving privilege, finding that she was driving a motor vehicle with .08% or more weight of alcohol in her blood in violation of Vehicle Code sections 23140, 23152, and 23153 and was lawfully arrested. AR 4. The Decision was mailed to Kuznetzova on August 6, 2019. AR 5. The Decision informed Kuznetsova she could request judicial review of the Decision by contacting the superior court in her county of residence within 34 days of August 6, 2019. AR 5.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

FULTON VS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Petitioner Sonja Fulton requests a writ of mandate, commanding the Department of Motor Vehicles to set aside its Order revoking petitioner's driving privilege. When a person petitions for a writ of mandate following an order suspending his or her driver's license, the court is required to determine, based on the exercise of its independent judgment, whether the weight of the evidence supports the administrative decision. Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 456; CCP §1094.5.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JEREMY PAUL SANTIZO V . STEVEN GORDON

The Decision concluded, based upon its findings, to re-impose suspension of Santizo’s driving privilege. On March 11, 2020, Santizo filed this petition for writ of mandate challenging the Decision. The petition is opposed by respondent Steven Gordon, Director, California Department of Motor Vehicles (respondent or DMV).

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

MANUEL CARLOS LOPEZ VS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

The hearing officer ended the stay of suspension against Petitioner’s driving privilege and re-imposed the suspension effective December 26, 2018 through December 25, 2020. (Ibid.) Writ Petition On March 6, 2019, Petitioner, in pro per, filed a petition for writ of mandate. On May 13, 2019, Respondent filed an answer. On March 20, 2020, Petitioner filed his opening brief in support of the petition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

EVA STEPHANIE MUNOZ VS STEVE GORDON

[AR 005] DMV re-imposed the suspension of Munoz’s driving privilege. [AR 003] D. Standards of Review: When DMV suspends a person’s driving privilege pursuant to Veh. Code § 13353.2, that person may seek judicial review pursuant to Veh. Code § 13559(a), which provides: “The review shall be on the record of the hearing and the court shall not consider other evidence.” In this regard, Munoz’s footnote #1 regarding an accreditation body is outside the record.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MAYNARD VS GORDON

If you refuse to submit or fail to complete a test your driving privilege will be suspended for one year or revoked for two or three years.... You do not have the right to talk to an attorney or have an attorney present before stating whether you will submit to a test, before deciding which test to take or during the test." AR 42; see also AR 31.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ANDREW KRELLESTEIN VS JEAN SHIOMOTO

Krellestein does not dispute that he was told his driving privilege would be suspended if he refused to submit to a test. F. Conclusion The petition for writ of mandate is denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JACQUELINE CARDONA VS KATHLEEN WEBB

Thus, Petitioner challenges the administrative finding that she refused to take a chemical test after being properly admonished that her driving privilege would be suspended or revoked if she refused or failed to complete the required chemical test. (AR 6.) In her writ briefs, Petitioner does not otherwise challenge the findings upon which the decision is based.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JULIAN OSCAR GERSON V. STEVEN GORDON

The Court dissolves its September 18, 2019, order staying the license suspension and re-imposes the Department of Motor Vehicle’s suspension of petitioner’s driving privilege.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

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

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.