United States District Court, E.D. California
For Buta Singh, Plaintiff: Aldon Louis Bolanos, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Office Of Aldon Bolanos, Sacramento, CA.
For Harminder S. Pooni, Ravinder Kaur, Pan-Am Transport, Inc., Defendants: Daniel J. Hanecak, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Office Of Daniel J. Hanecak, Sacramento, CA.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH THE WRIT OF POSSESSION
JOHN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Defendants Harminder Pooni, Ravinder Kaur, and Pan-Am Transport, Inc.'s (" Defendants") move to quash (Doc. #13) the writ of possession issued by this Court on October 8, 2014 (Doc. #8). Plaintiff Buta Singh (" Plaintiff") opposes the motion (Doc. #15). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is DENIED.
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of the disputed ownership of a 2005 Hummer H2. Compl. ¶ 2. Defendant Pooni claims that he bought the vehicle from Plaintiff for $17, 000. Mot. at 1. Plaintiff claims that he entrusted the vehicle to Defendant Pooni, who promised to broker a sale on Plaintiff's behalf. Compl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff argues that Defendant Pooni reneged on the deal, and is now improperly claiming ownership of the vehicle. Compl. ¶ 7.
Plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court, alleging conversion, theft by false pretenses, breach of contract, and unfair business practices. Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a writ of possession. This Court granted Plaintiff's application, finding that the necessary criteria for an ex parte writ of possession had been satisfied. In response, Defendants filed the motion to quash presently before the Court.
A. Evidentiary Objections
Defendants make a number of evidentiary objections (Doc. #16-3) to the declarations of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel. In a preliminary matter such as this, such objections are premature and are better saved for argument within the briefs. See Burch v. Regents of Univ. of California, 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006). In addition, in ruling on preliminary matters, the Court engages in self-policing, and does not rely on irrelevant or improper evidence. Moreover, as discussed below, the lion's share of the objected-to testimony does not address issues relevant to the Court's decision.
Defendants argue that the writ of possession should be quashed for a number of reasons. First, Defendants argue that " Plaintiff's counsel overreache[d] in his letter to Mr. Pooni" by threatening criminal sanctions in relation to this lawsuit. Mot. at 4. Next, Defendants argue that the vehicle was " not obtained in the regular course of business or for commercial purposes, " such that the requirements of CCP § 512.020 are not satisfied. Mot. at 4. Finally, Defendants argue that Defendants Ravinder Kaur and Pan Am Transport were deprived of " due process and notice of their rights" because Plaintiff failed to serve them, or their attorney, with a copy of the ex parte application for a writ of possession, or a copy of the Court's order granting the same. Mot. at 5.
Plaintiff responds with two arguments. First, he contends that " the court's determination in issuing the writ must not be disturbed under the exclusionary rule." Opp. at 3 (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)). Second, he argues that Defendants " sat on their rights" by failing to oppose Plaintiff's ex parte application for the writ, and should therefore be barred from " relitigating" the issues under the doctrines of laches and collateral estoppel. Opp. at 3, 6. Plaintiff ...