Talib v. Van Lingen Towing CA2/8

Filed 1/4/22 Talib v. Van Lingen Towing CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

TALMADGE ADIB TALIB, B288525

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC580054 v.

VAN LINGEN TOWING, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert Broadbelt, Judge. Affirmed.

Talmadge Adib Talib, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.

________________________

Police stopped Talmadge Adib Talib just before midnight on April 26, 2013. His car lacked headlights and a current registration sticker, and he was driving on a suspended driver’s license. Police impounded Talib’s car, which was towed, and cited him to appear in court on June 2, 2013, for driving on a suspended license. Talib sued in federal court to challenge this police stop. The federal court apparently adjudicated the matter for the defense. In state court, Talib then sued Van Lingen Towing, Inc. and Robert Van Lingen (collectively, “Van Lingen”) because, at police direction, these defendants towed Talib’s car from the arrest scene. The trial court granted Van Lingen’s motion for summary judgment in 2018. The court reasoned Van Lingen had acted in good faith and as the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s agent when it towed Talib’s car. This situation defeated Talib’s conversion claim, the court ruled, because Talib had no possessory interest in his car once police impounded it. Talib’s fraud claim failed because Van Lingen gave Talib proper notice of the auction when Talib failed to pay storage fees for his car. Neither could a negligence claim survive Van Lingen’s undisputed evidence that it breached no duty of care. And Talib’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress failed, the court finally ruled, because Van Lingen’s conduct was neither extreme nor outrageous. The court entered judgment against Talib. On appeal, Talib objects to what he maintains was oppressive and unfair police treatment in 2013. He does not, however, contest the trial court’s 2018 summary judgment ruling. We affirm this legal reasoning on the merits. The court’s analysis was straightforward and correct.