PNC Bank, National Association v. Florence Filter Corporation

The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2026 ______________________ Joseph Lipner Superior Court Judge

Case No. 26STLC03368 Hearing: August 26, 2026 v. Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse Department: 833 Florence Filter Corporation Judge: Joseph Lipner [Tentative] Order Denying Application for Writ of Possession

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff PNC Bank, National Association, successor to PNC Equipment Finance, LLC moves for writ of possession against Defendant Florence Filter Corporation ("Defendant") over the following property: 2025 Noblelift EK-FE3R25N-189 Lift Truck, Vehicle Identification No. 4EA30081. Defendant has not filed an opposition. The Court DENIES the writ of possession.

LEGAL STANDARD

"Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this chapter for a writ of possession by filing a written application for the writ with the court in which the action is brought." (Code Civ. Pro. Sec. 512.010, subd. (a).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, subd. (b), the application must be submitted under oath and include:

(1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed. If the basis of the plaintiff's claim is a written instrument, a copy of the instrument shall be attached.

(2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention.

(3) A particular description of the property and a statement of its value.

(4) A statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the location of the property and, if the property, or some part of it, is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, a showing that there is probable cause to believe that such property is located there.

(5) A statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute; or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff; or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure.

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. (Code Civ. Pro. Sec. 512.030.)

"The writ will be issued if the court finds that the plaintiff's claim is probably valid and the other requirements for issuing the writ are established." (Code Civ. Pro. Sec. 512.040(b).)

"A claim has 'probable validity' where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim." (Code Civ. Pro. Sec. 511.090.)

DISCUSSION

A. Notice

Plaintiff provided proper notice, per the proof of service filed on July 2, 2026.

B. Probable Validity of Plaintiff's Claim

Plaintiff seeks writs of possession based on its cause of action for (1) breach of written agreement; (2) claim and delivery; (3) conversion; and (4) account stated. Defendant entered into a written lease agreement with Plaintiff for the purchase of a 2025 Noblelift EK-FE3R25N-189 Lift Truck. (McGinley Decl., P. 5.) Defendant failed to make the payment due on the Agreement, and the current contract balance is $28,447.05. (McGinley Decl., P.P. 8-11.) The Agreement provides that upon the default by Defendant, Plaintiff was entitled to recover the truck. (McGinley Decl., P. 14.) However, Plaintiff has been unable to recover the truck. (Ibid.) Plaintiff has requested the truck from Defendant, but Defendant has not provided it. (McGinley Decl., P. 18.) The balance due suggests Plaintiff will prevail on the claim.

C. Wrongful Detention

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, subd. (b)(2), the application must include "a showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention." Plaintiff has made this showing.

D. Description and Value of Property

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, subd. (b)(3), the application must include a particular description of the property and a statement of its value. Plaintiff has provided a particular description of the property, by make and VIN. (McGinley Decl., P. 14.) Plaintiff therefore satisfies section 512.010, subd. (b)(3).

E. Statutory Statement

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, subd. (b)(5), Plaintiff must provide a statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to statute and has not been seized under an execution against the Plaintiff's property. The application includes this statement. (Application, P. 8a.)

F. Location of the Property

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, subd. (b)(4), Plaintiff must identify the probable location of the Vehicle and establish probable cause to that effect. Plaintiff seeks a writ of possession directing the levying officer to take the Vehicle from real property located at 530 W. Manville St., Compton, CA 90220. (McGinley Decl., P. 16.) That address appears on the lease agreement from July 24, 2025. (McGinley Decl., Exh. A.) Plaintiff has not offered any probable cause to show that the vehicle is currently located at that address. Plaintiff has stated only that it is "informed and believed" that it may be at that address, and in fact states that it may be at such "other location known to Defendant." (McGinley Decl., P. 16.) Thus, Plaintiff has not complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010, subd. (b)(4).

G. Undertaking.

Code of Civil Procedure section 515.010 requires an undertaking to be filed before the writ issues in the amount of "not less than twice the value of the defendant's interest in the property." Section 515.010, subd. (a) states that the value of the defendant's interest " is determined by the market value of the property less the amount due and owing on any conditional sales contract or security agreement and all liens and encumbrances on the property, and any other factors necessary to determine the defendant's interest in the property."

However, Section 515.010, subd. (b) says that "[i]f the Court finds that the Defendant has no interest in the property, the court shall waive the requirement of the Plaintiff's undertaking. Instead, Section 515.010, subd. (b) requires Defendant to post an undertaking in an amount equal to the maximum retail value. An undertaking is not necessary because Plaintiff has not established the probable cause requirement.

H. Turnover Order

Section 512.070 states: " If a writ of possession is issued, the court may also issue an order directing the defendant to transfer possession of the property to the plaintiff. Such order shall contain a notice to the defendant that failure to turn over possession of such property to plaintiff may subject the defendant to being held in contempt of court." (emphasis added.)

"Thus a 'turnover' order, issued pursuant to section 512.070, is not a separate remedy but rather an alternative means of enforcing a writ of possession." (Edwards v. Sup.Ct. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 173, 178.) Because the Court will not issue a writ of possession, the Court will not issue a turnover order.

I. Oral Evidence

"A party seeking permission to introduce oral evidence, except for oral evidence in rebuttal to oral evidence presented by the other party, must file, no later than three court days before the hearing, a written statement stating the nature and extent of the evidence proposed to be introduced and a reasonable time estimate for the hearing." (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1306, subd. (b).) Plaintiff has not complied with this rule and has not requested oral evidence.

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES the writ of possession. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2026 ______________________ Joseph Lipner Superior Court Judge | Home -->