What is an Application for Writ of Possession?

Useful Resources for Application for Writ of Possession

Recent Rulings on Application for Writ of Possession

ANDREA GALANTE VS JASON A WEISS ET AL

No authority is cited allowing the court to issue a writ of possession after the appeal has been perfected. Weiss also did not file a cross-complaint so it appears he cannot apply for a writ of possession. Conclusion: Weiss’ Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2021

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On November 24, 2020, the Court issued writ of possession. On December 11, 2020, the Court denied Jacqueline Momoli’s ex parte application to stay the lockout. On December 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for $10,462.50 in attorney fees. The motion is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CAHP CREDIT UNION VS REICH

Plaintiff CAHP Credit Union’s (“Plaintiff”) application for writ of possession as against defendants Aaron Reich and Steve Reich is DENIED without prejudice. As for defendant Aaron Reich the case is stayed. As for defendant Steve Reich, default was entered on 10/7/2020 (ROA 27). Because defendant Steve Reich is in default, he is barred from taking any action in the court other than seeking relief from said default. (See Devlin vs. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal. App. 3d 381.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., VS. RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES SOLUTIONS, INC.

Plaintiff’s application for writ of possession. No opposition. Application denied, without prejudice. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 512.010.) Plaintiff failed to make the required evidentiary showing. A plaintiff moving for a prejudgment writ of possession must submit admissible evidence of: (1) A right to possession of the personal property to be seized under the writ (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

ALLY BANK, A CORPORATION VS IOANNIS PANAYIOTOU, AN INDIVIDUAL

UNOPPOSED application for writ of possession is GRANTED. The Court finds that plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claim to possession of the property. No bond required for issuance of the writ inasmuch as the amount owed exceeds the market value of the vehicle. CCP §515.010. (Market value $23,725.00; Amount owed $26,606.07).

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS 30SIXTY ADVERTISING & DESIGN, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Compare CCP §516.030 (requirements for writ of possession). This means that the plaintiff must show evidentiary facts rather than the ultimate facts commonly found in pleadings. A recitation of conclusions without a foundation of evidentiary facts is insufficient. See Rodes v. Shannon, (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 743, 749 (declaration containing conclusions inadequate for summary judgment); Schessler v. Keck, (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 663, 669 (same).

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS 30SIXTY ADVERTISING & DESIGN, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Compare CCP §516.030 (requirements for writ of possession). This means that the plaintiff must show evidentiary facts rather than the ultimate facts commonly found in pleadings. A recitation of conclusions without a foundation of evidentiary facts is insufficient. See Rodes v. Shannon, (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 743, 749 (declaration containing conclusions inadequate for summary judgment); Schessler v. Keck, (1956) 138 Cal.App.2d 663, 669 (same).

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The entry of default and writ of possession appear to be a product of defendant’s excusable neglect. Default was entered against defendant on December 2, 2020 and a writ of possession was issued against defendant on December 4, 2020. Defendant had until January 31, 2021 to file a § 473(b) motion to vacate the entry of default and until February 2, 2021 to file a § 473(b) motion to quash/set aside the writ of possession.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. KARL H. BERGER, ET AL. VS SAMUEL BYBEE, ET AL.

The Receivers Application for Writ of Possession is GRANTED. The Receiver is entitled to full and complete possession and control over the Subject Property located at 9137 Belmont Street, Bellflower, California 90706 (“Property”), including the tangible and intangible personal property located in or about the Property. The Receiver is entitled to sole possession of the Property and to remove any occupants therefrom.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CIT BANK, N.A., A FEDERAL NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, VS MIRZOYAN LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

No proof of service for the application for writ of possession and supporting papers has been filed and there is no response to the application. See CRC 3.1300(c).

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JAMAL RASHID

Plaintiff seeks a Writ of Possession against Defendant repossess the 2016 Mercedes Benz S600X. [Tentative] Ruling Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of Possession is DENIED. DISCUSSION 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. (CCP §512.030.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ROCKY TOP RENTALS, LLC V. KNIPE

Application for Writ of Possession. TENTATIVE RULING # 5: UPON REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF, THIS MATTER IS DROPPED FROM THE CALENDAR DUE TO THE INABILITY TO SERVE THE RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

ALLY BANK, A CORPORATION VS EDWARD BEJAR, AN INDIVIDUAL

UNOPPOSED application for writ of possession is granted. The Court finds that plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claim to possession of the property. No bond required for issuance of the writ inasmuch as the amount owed exceeds the market value of the vehicle. CCP §515.010. (Market value $20,500; Amount owed $25,340.49).

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., VS CHRIS OSITI DRATI, ET AL.

Chris Ositi Drati, et al. 20TRCV00546 TENTATIVE RULING Santander Consumer USA, Inc.’s Application for Writ of Possession is granted. CCP § 512.010 sets forth the requirements in an application for writ of possession. CCP § 512.010(b) states: “The application shall be executed under oath and shall include all of the following: (1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On February 13, 2020, a writ of possession of real property was issued. On March 18, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against Defendant for breach of lease for failure to pay rent. On November 16, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to reclassify case from an unlawful detainer to an unlimited jurisdiction civil case. On November 20, 2020, default was entered as to Defendant Bolt Mobility California, LLC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

BMO HARRIS BANK VS PSS TRUCKIN

HEARING ON APPLCIATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION ( PARMVIR SIDHU) * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion is denied without prejudice due to a failure to file a proof of service.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

BMO HARRIS BANK VS PSS TRUCKIN

HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION ( PSS TRUCKING) * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion is denied without prejudice due to a failure to file a proof of service.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS VIRGINIA MOJICA, ET AL.

.: 20NWCV00647 HEARING: 1/13/21 @ 1:30 PM #4 TENTATIVE ORDER Plaintiff Americredit Financial Services, Inc.’s application for writ of possession is GRANTED. No bond. Moving Party to give NOTICE. Plaintiff Americredit Financial Services, Inc. applies for a writ of possession pursuant to CCP § 512.010 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALLY BANK VS BICKFORD NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION - CLAIM AND DELIVERY BY ALLY BANK

Motion granted. No opposition filed. The court sets amount of counter-bond at $8,448. (Code Civ. Proc., § 515.010, subd. (b).) Plaintiff must prepare formal order for the court....

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

ALLY BANK, A CORPORATION VS MARK S. WATLEY

Hearing Date: January 12, 2021 Moving Parties: Plaintiff Ally Bank Responding Party: None Application for Writ of Possession The court considered the moving papers. RULING The application for writ of possession is GRANTED. See Order on CD-120 to be submitted by plaintiff. BACKGROUND On February 27, 2020, plaintiff Ally Bank filed a complaint against defendant Mark S.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

HARDIN AUTOMOTIVE VS. ELITE PARTNERS LLC

Four Applications for Writ of Possession Moving Party: Plaintiff Hardin Automotive Responding Party: Defendants (1) Elite Partners, LLC, (2) Jose Alfredo Salcido, (3) Ryan Kralman and (4) California Department of Motor Vehicles Ruling: Plaintiff Hardin Automotive’s Application for a Writ of Possession is GRANTED as to Defendants (1) Elite Partners, LLC, (2) Jose Alfredo Salcido and (3) Ryan Kralman.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

HARDIN AUTOMOTIVE VS. ELITE PARTNERS LLC

Four Applications for Writ of Possession Moving Party: Plaintiff Hardin Automotive Responding Party: Defendants (1) Elite Partners, LLC, (2) Jose Alfredo Salcido, (3) Ryan Kralman and (4) California Department of Motor Vehicles Ruling: Plaintiff Hardin Automotive’s Application for a Writ of Possession is GRANTED as to Defendants (1) Elite Partners, LLC, (2) Jose Alfredo Salcido and (3) Ryan Kralman.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

ALLISON A. THOMPSON, TRUSTEE OF THE ALLISON A. THOMPSON TRUST DATED 1993 VS LORI MCKELVEY, ET AL.

NEWHALL, CA 91321; for the Court to direct the Court Clerk to issue a Writ of Possession forthwith; for entry of a money judgment against all Defendants for money for the sum daily rental value in the amount of $86.67 per day multiplied by the number of days that have passed from September 1, 2019 up until the entry of this judgment, attorney fees, and for costs of suit after entry of a Memorandum of Costs and added to any money judgment. (See Thompson Decl. ¶8).

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

TRE MILANO, LLC VS ALISSA MARIE KING

On February 28, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for writ of possession relating to that flash drive and temporary restraining order. (See 2/28/2020 Minute Order.) On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed this action without prejudice. (See 06/16/2020 Request.) On August 13, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $87,672.44, which includes the fees incurred to date and in connection with the submission of this instant motion and motion against the bond.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

EASTERN FUNDING LLC, ET AL. VS WALLY WASH LAUNDRY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Ruling The applications for writ of possession are denied without prejudice. Next dates: Notice:

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 73     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.