MICHAEL BENBEN

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, Line 1. Petitioner's motion for return of automobile is DENIED.

A traditional writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is "a legal tool to compel a public agency to perform a legal, typically ministerial, duty." (California Privacy Protection Agency v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 705, 721.) "A ministerial duty is an act that a public agency is required to perform in a prescribed manner under the mandate of legal authority without the exercise of judgment or opinion concerning the propriety of the act." (Id.) To obtain the writ, the petitioner must show that (1) there is no other "plain, speedy, and adequate remedy," (2) "respondent has a clear, present, and ministerial duty to act in a particular way," and (3) petitioner has "a clear, present and beneficial right to performance of that duty." (Id.)

It is illegal to drive an unregistered vehicle on a public roadway. (Vehicle Code section 4000(a)(1).) Vehicle Code section 22651(o)(1)(A)(i) allows a vehicle to be towed if it is operated on a public roadway with "a registration expiration date in excess of six months." Vehicle Code section 22850.3(a) explicitly states that a vehicle "shall be released to the owner or person in control of the vehicle only if the owner or person furnishes satisfactory proof of current vehicle registration."

Petitioner concedes that "Vehicle Code section 22651 authorized removal of the vehicle from the roadway" and he "does not challenge the validity of the initial tow." (Pet's MPA 2:19-20, 4:13-14.) Petitioner thus does not challenge the original removal of the vehicle because it was not properly registered. There is no evidence that Petitioner subsequently registered the vehicle. In such circumstances, there is no ministerial duty to release the vehicle. In fact, if Respondents did so, they would abuse their discretion because they would be violating Vehicle Code section 22850.3. Petitioner's attempt to distinguish between the initial tow and the current detention is at best, sophistry and is not a basis for relief. None of Petitioner's other contentions has any merit. The motion is therefore denied.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |