applications for writ of possession
307 Grange vs. First Defendants Higgs Fletcher & Mack and Michael P. American Title Burns’ unopposed demurrer to the second amended Company complaint (SAC) of plaintiffs Jeff T. Grange and Dawn Downs is SUSTAINED in its entirety. The request for order to show cause, motion to strike and motion for protective order are MOOT.
Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (2nd and 6th causes of action): The SAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action, including the existence of an economic relationship with a third party and independently wrongful acts. (See Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 505, 512 [elements].)
Intentional interference with contractual relations (3rd and 7th causes of action): The SAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action, including a valid contract between Plaintiffs and a third party. (See Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 55 [elements]; Mintz v. Blue Cross of Calif. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1594, 1607 [the agent of a contracting party cannot be held personally liable for interfering with its principal’s contract].)
Declaratory relief (5th cause of action): This claim is derivative of the other claims and fails for the same reasons.
The 8/10/26 CMC remains on calendar.
Defendants shall give notice.
308 CROSSROADS The unopposed applications for writ of possession EQUIPMENT filed by plaintiff Crossroads Equipment Lease and LEASE AND Finance, LLC (Plaintiff) against defendants DW FINANCE, LLC Freight Services and Mo Li (collectively, vs. DW Defendants) are GRANTED.
FREIGHT Plaintiff applies for writs of possession under Code SERVICES of Civil Procedure section 512.010 as to the following property: 2019 Freightliner 126SLP, VIN 3AKJHHDR1KSKJ0741, and 2019 Freightliner 126SLP, VIN 3AKJHHDR5KSKJ0595 (together, Subject Property).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The applications were duly served on Defendants. (See ROA 24, 26). Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010 and has established the probable validity of its claim to possession of the Subject Property. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 512.010, 512.060(a); Broadie Decl., ¶¶ 1-22; Exs. 1-5.)
As Plaintiff has presented evidence to show Defendants have no equity in the Subject Property, no bond or undertaking is required. (Broadie Decl., ¶¶ 23-24, Ex. 6; Code Civ. Proc., § 515.010(b).)
Plaintiff’s request for an order, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.070, directing Defendants to transfer possession of the Subject Property to Plaintiff is GRANTED.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order and shall give notice of this ruling.
309 Shift4 The application of attorney Mauro G. Tucci to Payments, LLC appear pro hac vice as counsel for Shift4 Payments, vs. S5 Equity, LLC is DENIED, without prejudice. LLC Tucci’s application fails to comply with California Rule of Court 9.40. Application not served on State Bar at its San Francisco office. (Rule 9.40(c)(1).) Tucci does not state whether or not he is “Regularly employed in the State of California” or “Regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.” (Rule 9.40(a)(2)&(3).) Also, the title of the case in which