Steven L. Lombardo v. Mercantile Resource Group, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-02153
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Lombardo v. Mercantile Resource Group: Judge Freeman denied plaintiffs’ application for a writ of possession because Lombardo did not show probable entitlement.
Steven Lombardo and Life Force Trust did not obtain the requested writ of replevin/possession. Defendant David Sanchez opposed the application; the opinion identifies him as the only defendant who had appeared.
What happened
In Steven L. Lombardo v. Mercantile Resource Group, Inc., Steven Lombardo and Life Force Trust asked the court to deliver disputed railroad bonds to Lombardo.
Defendant David Sanchez, the only defendant who had appeared, opposed the request. The court explained that a possession order is temporary and requires plaintiffs to show that their claim to possession is probably valid.
The court denied the application because Lombardo did not provide enough evidence that he owned the bonds or was entitled to possess them. Judge Beth Labson Freeman found that the record instead suggested Mercantile owned the bonds.
The detailed version
- Steven L. Lombardo v. Mercantile Resource Group, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-02153
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 26, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs Steven Lombardo and Life Force Trust applied for a writ of replevin, also called a writ of possession under California law. They asked the court to deliver disputed railroad bonds to Lombardo. Defendant David Sanchez—the only defendant who had appeared—opposed the application. The court held hearings on August 19 and August 26, 2021.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 allows a federal court to use state-law remedies for seizing property to secure a possible judgment. Under California law, a writ of possession may issue after a hearing only if the plaintiff establishes the probable validity of the claim to possession and posts or obtains a waiver of an undertaking. “Probable validity” means that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment on the claim.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that the requirement concerning Lombardo’s entitlement to possession was decisive. Based on the record, it appeared that Lombardo and Sanchez each owned 50% of Mercantile Resource Group through their respective trusts, and that Mercantile owned the bonds. The evidence showed that custody of the bonds had changed, meaning that the place where Mercantile stored them had changed. But the record did not sufficiently show that ownership of the bonds had transferred from Mercantile to another person or entity. The court also found no evidence that Lombardo personally owned the bonds.
Because Lombardo had not shown that it was more likely than not that he was entitled to possess the bonds, he had not established the required probable validity of his claim.
Disposition
The court denied Plaintiffs’ application for a writ of replevin/possession.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.