Steven L. Lombardo v. Mercantile Resource Group, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-02153
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lombardo v. Mercantile Resource Group, Judge Freeman denied Lombardo’s second request for a writ to obtain disputed railroad bonds.
Steven L. Lombardo’s request for temporary possession of the disputed railroad bonds was denied; the order does not decide final ownership or possession.
What happened
In Steven L. Lombardo v. Mercantile Resource Group, Inc., Steven Lombardo asked the court to deliver disputed railroad bonds to him through a writ of replevin, also called a writ of possession under California law. David Sanchez opposed the request.
The court explained that Lombardo had to show probable cause to believe the bonds were located at Sanchez’s home or business. Although Lombardo stated that he believed the property was there, he provided no affidavit or other evidence supporting that belief.
The court found this missing evidence decisive and denied Lombardo’s second application for a writ of replevin or possession. Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order.
The detailed version
- Steven L. Lombardo v. Mercantile Resource Group, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-02153
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 15, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Steven Lombardo filed a second application for a writ of replevin or possession. He asked the court to deliver disputed railroad bonds into his possession. Defendant David Sanchez opposed the application. The court held a hearing on December 15, 2022.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64(a) makes available remedies authorized by the law of the state where the federal court is located for seizing property to secure a possible judgment. The court explained that California calls a writ of replevin a writ of possession. This remedy is temporary; ownership and the final right to possess the property are determined by the final judgment.
Under California law, a plaintiff seeking a writ of possession must provide specified information, including the property's location. After a hearing, the writ may issue 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 against the defendant on the claim.
Court’s analysis
The court found the location requirement dispositive. Lombardo stated in his application that there was probable cause to believe the bonds were located in Sanchez’s home and place of business. But Lombardo submitted no affidavit or other evidence showing probable cause to believe the property was at the identified address.
Disposition
The court held that this lack of supporting evidence was fatal to the application and denied Lombardo’s second application for a writ of replevin or possession. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.