HOLT vs NOR CAL TOWING

24CV003218: HOLT vs NOR CAL TOWING 03/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Release Vehicle from Tow Yard in Defs Possession in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf. A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff in pro per Sandy Holt’s “Motion to Release Vehicle from Tow Yard in Defendants [sic] Possession” is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

The present motion is not supported by a memorandum of points & authorities, as required by CRC Rule 3.1113.

24CV003218: HOLT vs NOR CAL TOWING 03/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Release Vehicle from Tow Yard in Defs Possession in Department 53

Factual Background

Plaintiff in pro per Holt commenced this action by filing on 2/22/2024 a complaint for damages based on the allegedly wrongful towing of plaintiff’s vehicle from Rancho Cordova in December 2023. The Complaint purports to assert causes of action for fraud, negligence, violation of constitutional rights and emotional distress against defendant “Nor Cal Towing.” A default has been entered against this defendant but a motion for relief from same is now set for hearing on 5/8/2025.

Moving Papers. Plaintiff’s present motion filed on 1/9/2025 appears to seek a court order to release plaintiff’s vehicle from a “tow yard in defendant’s possession.” As noted above, this motion does not include a memorandum of points & authorities but instead essentially consists of a notice of motion and a declaration, which avers that plaintiff’s vehicle was wrongfully towed in violation of multiple law and should be released with plaintiff having to pay any fees for towing or for storage.

Opposition. No opposition has been filed as the only named defendant has been defaulted.

Discussion

At the outset, the Court finds that there is no cognizable motion under the Code of Civil Procedure or other California such as plaintiff’s self-titled “Motion to Release Vehicle from Tow Yard in Defendants [sic] Possession.” Given there is no such motion which can be made under California law, this attempted motion by plaintiff shall be denied.

Second, as indicated above, the present motion does not include a memorandum of points & authorities includes any legal authority claimed to support the relief sought by plaintiff here. CRC Rule 3.1113(a) expressly provides that the Court may construe the absence of such memorandum “as an admission that the motion is not meritorious and cause for its denial.” On this separate and independent ground as well, the present attempted motion shall be denied.

Third, even if plaintiff’s attempted motion was intended to be a request for some provisional relief pending trial (such as a preliminary injunction), it would still be denied. Although it is plaintiff’s burden as moving party, plaintiff Holt’s moving papers fail to identify any specific legal authority which entitles her to the relief sought by this motion or which otherwise authorizes this Court to grant such relief pursuant to a noticed motion. To the contrary, the moving papers essentially consist of a conclusory assertion that plaintiff’s vehicle was wrongfully towed and should therefore be returned to her without cost. However, plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority entitling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV003218: HOLT vs NOR CAL TOWING 03/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Release Vehicle from Tow Yard in Defs Possession in Department 53

her to such relief and also failed to provide any competent, admissible evidence to bear out her contentions, even if provisional relief were sought. Indeed, plaintiff has not presented competent, admissible evidence that the subject vehicle is currently in the sole defendant’s possession, custody or control and thus, it remains unclear if the sole defendant could comply with the order plaintiff is seeking. Further, even if plaintiff had properly noticed and filed a motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiff appears to seek what would constitute mandatory injunctive relief which is rarely available as a pretrial provisional remedy. (See, e.g., Teachers Ins.

V. Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493; Integrated Dynamic Solutions, Inc. v. VitaVet Labs, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1184; Brown v. Pacific Found., Inc. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 915, 925.) For this reason as well, plaintiff’s attempted motion will be denied.

Lastly, the Court will add that Law and Motion proceedings such as those handled by this department do not include any trials on the merits. That is, this is not a trial, nor will this department preside over any trial in this case. Plaintiff appears to seek, through this motion, the ultimate relief that plaintiff would seek at trial based upon her complaint. To the extent there are disputed material facts which must be resolved in order to reach a final judgment in this case, such a resolution is neither appropriate nor available through Law and Motion proceedings. Consequently, it is not appropriate to file in this department any motion which requests this Court to resolve any factual disputes and render a final judgment in this litigation.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff Holt’s present “Motion to Release Vehicle from Tow Yard in Defendants [sic] Possession” shall be DENIED in its entirety.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)