What is an Appointment of Receiver?

Useful Rulings on Appointment of Receiver

Recent Rulings on Appointment of Receiver

CITY OF LAWNDALE VS THOMAS A. SHAW

The September 17, 2019 court order for appointment of receiver provides that “Defendant is required to reimburse the City, Receiver and all vendors hired to cure the defects in the property for its complete enforcement costs with respect to the property, including but not limited to inspection costs, investigation costs, enforcement costs, attorney fees and costs to repair and eliminate substandard conditions. 9/17/19 Order for Appointment of Receiver and Requiring Reimbursements, ¶ 13.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SERENA YOUNG VS PHILIP E HILL M.D ET AL

Motion for Appointment of Receiver Young moves for an order appointing a receiver to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of arbitration. Parties’ Positions Young contends Hill continues to strip LBAO of assets, and a receiver is necessary to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of the appeal. Hill opposes the motion. He contends Young no longer owns ½ of LBAO.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HILLSBORO BROWN CAPITAL VS TAFT

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Receiver and Issuance of Preliminary Injunction. Ruling: Off Calendar – no hearing will be held. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Receiver and Issuance of Preliminary Injunction is continued to 1-12-21, Dept. C11, at 2 pm. The Court has reviewed the papers, including the certain Santa Ana “Monthly Cannabis – Retailer Business License Tax Report,” the “420 Central Monthly Reports” and the Declaration of Brian Hill.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

RICHARD DIXON VS SCOTT D MCGEE, ET AL.

procedural history Rojo filed the Complaint on August 14, 2020, alleging eleven causes of action: Breach of fiduciary duties Unjust enrichment and constructive trust Conspiracy Injunctive relief – appointment of receiver, TRO Unfair practices Dissolution and winding up of accounting Elder abuse False pretenses Discrimination, harassment, retaliation Unfair practices Dissolution and winding up of accounting On May 29, 2020, Rojo filed the FAC, alleging nine causes of action: Appointment of receiver

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

NANCY L. ROJO, MS. VS ROBERT M. ROCHA, ET AL.

procedural history Rojo filed the Complaint on August 14, 2020, alleging eleven causes of action: Breach of fiduciary duties Unjust enrichment and constructive trust Conspiracy Injunctive relief – appointment of receiver, TRO Unfair practices Dissolution and winding up of accounting Elder abuse False pretenses Discrimination, harassment, retaliation Unfair practices Dissolution and winding up of accounting On May 29, 2020, Rojo filed the FAC, alleging nine causes of action: Appointment of receiver

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

MUNOZ VS SAN DIEGO BEST WINDOW COMPANY INC

Tentative Ruling on Post-Judgment Motion for Appointment of Receiver Munoz v. San Diego Best (Tough Turtle Turf), Case No. 2018-02872 Trial: April 2-8, 2019, Dept. 72 (in lead case) SOD: 6/3/19 (in lead case) Judgment in present case: June 5, 2020 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. Numerous workers employed by a local provider of synthetic turf were not paid as required by California's unapologetically pro-employee wage and hour laws.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MUNOZ VS SAN DIEGO BEST WINDOW COMPANY INC

Tentative Ruling on Post-Judgment Motion for Appointment of Receiver Munoz v. San Diego Best (Tough Turtle Turf), Case No. 2018-02872 Trial: April 2-8, 2019, Dept. 72 (in lead case) SOD: 6/3/19 (in lead case) Judgment in present case: June 5, 2020 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. Numerous workers employed by a local provider of synthetic turf were not paid as required by California's unapologetically pro-employee wage and hour laws.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

VIRK, ET AL. V. ANAND, ET AL.

of receiver (by Taproop, against all defendants); 15) Fraud (by Amar against Taresh); 16) Constructive fraud (by Amar against Taresh); 17) Constructive trust (by Amar against Taresh); 18) Unjust enrichment (by Amar against Taresh); 19) Breach of contract (by Amar against Taresh); 20) Wrongful termination in violation of public policy (by Amar against AI); 21) Breach of verbal contract of continued employment (by Amar against AI); and, 22) Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (by

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

SCOTT LAMBERT VS PATRICK GOLDBERG MCMAHON, ET AL.

The court set a hearing on a motion for appointment of receiver and set a briefing schedule. On February 20, 2020, the motion to appoint receiver came for hearing. After the court issued a tentative ruling denying the application, counsel advised the court that the parties stipulated to have Blake Alsbrook (“Receiver” or “Alsbrook”) appointed as receiver. The court approved the stipulation and, accordingly, did not adopt its tentative ruling.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

KHALED J. AL-SABAH VS VICTORINO NOVAL

Case No. 19STCV42446 Hearing Date: November 6, 2020 [Tentative] Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Receiver Plaintiffs, Khaled J. Al-Sabah and Jarrah Khaled Al-Sabah,[1] request this court appoint a receiver over seven real properties and an investment portfolio. Defendants 8484 Wilshire Blvd, LLC, 1141 Summit Drive, LLC, Secured Capital Partners, LLC, Beverly Hills Real Estate Holdings, LLC and Victorino Noval (collectively, Defendants) oppose Plaintiffs’ request. The motion is denied.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

CITY OF POMONA VS JUAN ORLANDO LOMBARDERO

Merits On June 7, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition for Appointment of Receiver and Other Relief Pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 17980.7. On August 2, 2018, an “Order Granting Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Receiver and Other Relief Pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 17980.7 . . .” (“Appointment Order”) was filed. The Appointment Order authorized the Receiver to issue a $15,000 initial certificate to cover start-up costs.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS OKU

The Court notes that the Receiver has complied with the Court's temporary order (ROA # 20) by filing the Oath of Receiver and an Undertaking. ROA # 21, 22. Plaintiffs are directed to submit an Order, consistent with the Court's findings and order, to the Court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

PACIFIC CITY BANK VS EUNYOUNG YOUN

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT BACKGROUND: On August 28, 2018, Plaintiff Pacific City Bank filed a verified complaint against Defendant Eunyoung Youn for (1) breach of contract, (2) recovery of personal property, (3) for specific performance for appointment of receiver and injunctive relief, and (4) money lent.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

DRAKE KENNEDY, ET AL. VS BRIAN KENNEDY, ET AL.

On October 22, 2018, Drake filed his operative Complaint, alleging 8 causes of action for: (1) appointment of receiver, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) breach of written contract, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) “removal of Brian Kennedy as a Director,” (6) accounting, (7) financial elder abuse, and (8) conversion. Drake’s operative Complaint alleges that in 2013, Drake brought a lawsuit against Brian alleging similar causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

CAROL JEAN THOMPSON, VS DELMER JAMES MCENTYRE, ET AL.

Hearing Date: October 30, 2020 Moving Parties: Plaintiffs Carol Jean Thompson, Michael McEntyre, and Patricia McEntyre, co-trustees Responding Party: Defendant Delmer James McEntyre Motion for Appointment of Receiver The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. RULING The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PREMIER TRUST, INC VS. MARY CAMPBELL, TRUSTEE

Motion to Enforce Settlement Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Premier Trust, Inc.’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Appointment of Receiver is GRANTED as follows: The Court finds an enforceable settlement agreement exists between the parties and that said agreement was executed during the pendency of this action which is on-going.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

YUKI MARSDEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF HARUE J. MARSDEN ESTATE VS ERIC W. LESER O.D., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

Additionally, the proposed First Amended Complaint segregates derivative causes of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Fraud and Deceit, Appointment of Receiver and/or Provisional Director; Abuse of Control; Corporate Waste and Mismanagement; Accounting; and Declaratory Relief from individual causes of action for Dissolution of Corporation; Equitable Dissolution of Joint Venture/Partnership; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Fraudulent Transfer; Fraud and Deceit; Fraud in the Inducement; Constructive Fraud; Accounting

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

PB COMPANIES, LLC V. TAYLOR JUDKINS, ET AL.

On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff PB Companies, LLC, derivatively on behalf of Tank Farm Center, LLC, filed a lawsuit against Defendants Taylor Judkins and Tank Farm Center, LLC1 alleging causes of action for (1) disassociation and expulsion of Defendant Taylor Judkins as member of the Company; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) fraud by concealment; (4) constructive fraud; (5) conversion; and (6) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and request for appointment of receiver.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

CITY OF DUARTE VS LEVON H. BARDAKJIAN, ET AL

The file shows that California Receivership Group has filed its Oath of Receiver and an undertaking in the sum of $10,000. On May 7, 2018, the court heard an ex parte request of defendants for an order for stay of the receivership order, which was granted and the court’s minute order orders a 60 day stay on the Receivership order, ordering, “However, the Receiver may have access to the subject property to continue his inspection and estimate of work.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

CAROL JEAN THOMPSON, VS DELMER JAMES MCENTYRE, ET AL.

Hearing Date: October 23, 2020 Moving Parties: Plaintiffs Carol Jean Thompson, Michael McEntyre, and Patricia McEntyre, co-trustees Responding Party: Defendant Delmer James McEntyre Motion for Appointment of Receiver The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. RULING The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

YI HAN VS QINGYUN JIANG

On January 15, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and setting of an order to show cause re: preliminary injunction and appointment of receiver. In denying the ex parte application, the Court noted that “plaintiff did not give notice to defendant of the ex parte application. In addition, the March 3, 2016, e-mail states that no agreement was in effect. Further, plaintiff has not presented evidence that he will prevail on the merits of his claims.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

CITY OF LA HABRA VS. JOHNSON

Petition to Abate Building and Appointment of Receiver The Petition filed by City of La Habra (“City”) for an Order to Abate Substandard Building and Appoint Receiver, per Health & Safety Code § 17980.7(c), as to real property located at 410 N. Marion St., La Habra CA 90631 (APN 022-433-03) (the “Property”) previously came on for hearing on 9/18/20. At that time, City advised that the property was being sold, with escrow expected to close on or around 10/2/20. City thus requested a brief continuance.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

AARON JUSTIS, ET AL. VS. MICHAEL HODGES

Hodges filed a first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”) on May 21, 2018 against Aaron Justis and B&R for: (1) appointment of receiver; (2) removal of director; (3) breach of oral contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) conversion; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) quantum meruit; (8) declaratory relief; (9) fraud; (10) promissory estoppel; (11) appointment of provisional director; and (12) accounting. B.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DORIS BERGMAN VS FRANK ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Receiver and a Petition concerning the internal Affairs of a Trust in the probate department. On September 16, 2019, Defendant filed a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint. On October 22, 2019, this Court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of a Receiver, and granted the demurrer with leave to amend. On December 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

HEDGEFOG RESEARCH, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, VS PRECISION OCULAR METROLOGY, LLC, A NEW MEXICO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

On September 21, 2020, Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion for Appointment of Receiver To Apply Judgment Debtor’s Assets In Satisfaction of Judgment. No opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.