Joe Fazio vs. Wang Brothers Investments LLC

34-2023-00337831-CU-BC-GDS: Joe Fazio vs. Wang Brothers Investments LLC 06/25/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Claim for Surplus Funds 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-cagov.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/court-reporters/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

34-2023-00337831-CU-BC-GDS: Joe Fazio vs. Wang Brothers Investments LLC 06/25/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Claim for Surplus Funds in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Plaintiff Joe Fazio’s “claim for surplus funds” is ruled upon as follows.

On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed his verified first amended complaint against Defendants for 1) conversion, 2) breach of contract, 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, 4) unfair debt collection practices, 5) conspiracy to defraud and steal assets, 6) negligent protection of assets, and 7) failure to turn over excess funds from auction of personal property.

Plaintiff alleges he entered into a contract with Defendants on or around May 3, 2018 for Defendants to store Plaintiff’s antique car collection in their warehouse. (Complaint ¶ 1.) Plaintiff fell behind on his rental payments. (Ibid.) On October 9, 2020, the parties entered into a new agreement under which Plaintiff was to furnish back payments. (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff fell behind on payments again at which point Defendants changed the locks on the warehouse. (Ibid.) On December 15, 2021, Defendants filed an unlawful detainer action and the Court issued a default judgment for possession.

Plaintiff asserts this order was later vacated by the Court for improper service upon Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 29.) Defendants proceeded to sell the contents of the warehouse at auction in excess of $700,000 and have not reimbursed Plaintiff for his portion of the proceeds after accounting for fees and rent owed. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 28.)

Plaintiff now files the instant motion entitled “claim for surplus funds.” Plaintiff requests the following: “Since there is no valid court order regarding rent, and the judgment of possession has been ruled null and void, to the best of Claimant’s knowledge, no unsatisfied claims have superior priority over his claim to the surplus. Accordingly, claimant Joe Fazio claims the remaining surplus funds, plus interest, and requests that these funds and interest be transferred to him forthwith.” (Mot. 3:21-26.)

Defendants have opposed, arguing Plaintiff has no standing to bring the motion as he is not a party to the lease which was the subject of the unlawful detainer action, that the requested relief is moot as Defendants have deposited the funds at issue with the Court pursuant to their interpleader action, and the terms of the lease do not comport with the relief Plaintiff seeks.

Neither Plaintiff’s notice of motion nor the memorandum of points and authorities state any authority by which the Court may grant Plaintiff the relief he seeks. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to be made whole as a result of Defendant wrongfully auctioning off his property without proper notice, this motion echoes the relief Plaintiff seeks in his complaint. Plaintiff will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence in support of his allegations at trial.

The motion is DENIED.