Preview
INDEX NO. 950971/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
EXHIBIT A
ee8,AM ager
28720 INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COUN
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 Case 20-
eEReD NYSCEF 12/28/2021
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: Chapter 11
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND Case No. 20-10343 (LSS)
DELAWARE BSA, LLC,!
(Jointly Administered)
Debtors.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Adv. Pro. No. 20-50527 (LSS)
Re: Adv. Docket Nos. 54, 72, 77, 107, 116, 151,
A.A., etal., 162, 185
Defendants.
ORDER APPROVING SIXTH STIPULATION BY AND AMONG BOY SCOUTS OF
AMERICA, THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF SURVIVORS OF ABUSE, AND THE
OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS MODIFYING THE
CONSENT ORDER GRANTING THE BSA’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) AND 362 AND FURTHER
EXTENDING THE TERMINATION DATE OF THE STANDSTILL PERIOD
This Court having considered the Sixth Stipulation By and Among Boy Scouts of America,
the Official Committee of Survivors of Abuse, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
Modifying the Consent Order Granting the BSA’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pursuant
to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 362 and Further Extending the Termination Date of the Standstill
Period (the “Sixth Stipulation”),” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and upon the
' The Debtors in the chapter 11 cases, together with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification
number, are as follows: Boy Scouts of America (6300) and Delaware BSA, LLC (4311). The Debtors’ mailing
address 1325 West Walnut Hill Lane, Irving, Texas 75038.
? Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Sixth
Stipulation.
eee,AM age
28/720 INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COUN
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 Case 20-
OLRVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
record of this case and due deliberation thereon, and good and sufficient cause appearing
therefor,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1 The Sixth Stipulation is approved, and the Termination Date of the Standstill
Period is hereby extended, in accordance with the terms of the Sixth Stipulation, up to and
including the date of the first omnibus hearing after the Bankruptcy Court issues its decision
confirming or denying confirmation of the Plan (the “Extended Termination Date”).
2 For the avoidance of doubt, no Local Council is being ordered to comply with the
terms of the Sixth Stipulation or is being ordered to take any of the actions described in
Paragraphs 4 through 8 thereof. Rather, the terms in Paragraphs 4 through 8 of the Sixth
Stipulation simply set out the terms under which the TCC and the UCC can seek to terminate the
Preliminary Injunction (as set forth in Paragraph 9 thereof) with respect to a particular Local
Council that has not complied with the terms set out in Paragraphs 4 through 8 thereof.
3 The Debtors, the TCC and the UCC are authorized to take all actions necessary or
desirable to effectuate the relief granted pursuant to, and in accordance with, this Order and the
Sixth Stipulation; provided, however, that in approving the Sixth Stipulation and authorizing the
parties to effectuate it the Court is not making any ruling or finding that any insurer has
consented to the obligations taken under Paragraph 5 of the Sixth Stipulation. Nothing in this
Order shall impair the rights of insurers under their insurance policies with regard to the subject
matter of the Sixth Stipulation.
4 The terms and conditions of this Order and the Sixth Stipulation shall be
immediately effective and enforceable upon entry of this Order.
ee8,AM age
28/720 INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COUN
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 Case 20-
OLRVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
5 This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or
related to the implementation, interpretation and enforcement of this Order and/or the Sixth
Stipulation.
Dated: November 8th, 2021
Wilmington, Delaware
se apebtrler
LAURIE SELBER/SILVERSTEIN
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY J UDGE
Mobo t-t& RK 3M
INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COU 1272872 1 0632
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 V@ U: 2 Doc I9S-L TET.
LT7UST.
age RePEMVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
Exhibit 1
Sixth Stipulation
Mobo t-t& RK 3M
INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COU 1272872021 06:2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 V@ U: 2 Doc I9S-L TET. LT7UST.
age PEMD NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: Chapter 11
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND Case No. 20-10343 (LSS)
DELAWARE BSA, LLC;}
(Jointly Administered)
Debtors.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Adv. Pro. No. 20-50527 (LSS)
Re: Adv. Docket Nos. 54, 72, 77, 107, 116, 151,
AA,, et al., 162, 185
Defendants.
SIXTH STIPULATION BY AND AMONG BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA,
THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF SURVIVORS OF ABUSE, AND THE OFFICIAL
COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS MODIFYING THE CONSENT ORDER
GRANTING THE BSA’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT
TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) AND 362 AND FURTHER EXTENDING THE
TERMINATION DATE OF THE STANDSTILL PERIOD
This sixth stipulation (this “Sixth Stipulation”) modifying certain terms of the Consent
Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 362 Granting the BSA’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction [Adv. Docket No. 54] (the “Consent Order”)? and further extending the Termination
Date of the Standstill Period thereunder is made and entered into by and among the Boy Scouts
of America (the “BSA”), the non-profit corporation that is, along with its affiliate, Delaware
! The Debtors in the chapter 11 cases, together with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification
number, are as follows: Boy Scouts of America (6300) and Delaware BSA, LLC (4311). The Debtors’ mailing
address is 1325 West Walnut Hill Lane, Irving, Texas 75038.
? Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the
Consent Order or The BSA’s Opening Brief in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Sections
105(a) and 362 of the Bankruptcy Code [Adv. Docket No. 7], as applicable, unless otherwise indicated.
3M
INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COU
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 V@ U: NEYEE ERK 2 Doc
1272872021
I9S-L
06:2
TET. LT7UST.
age PEMD NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
BSA, LLC, a debtor and debtor in possession in the above-captioned Chapter 11 Cases, the
official committee of survivors of abuse (the “TCC”), and the official committee of unsecured
creditors (the “UCC” and, together with the TCC, the “Committees”), by and through their
respective undersigned counsel.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on March 30, 2020, after notice and a hearing, the Bankruptcy Court entered
the Consent Order.
WHEREAS, the Consent Order stayed, up to and including May 18, 2020 (the
“Termination Date”), each of the Pending Abuse Actions and Further Abuse Actions identified
on Schedule 1 to the Consent Order with respect to the BSA Related Parties identified on
Schedule 2 to the Consent Order. The time period from the Petition Date to and including the
Termination Date, as extended from time to time, is referred to as the “Standstill Period.”
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Stipulation and Agreed
Order By and Among the Boy Scouts of America, the Official Committee of Survivors of Abuse,
and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Extending the Termination Date of the
Standstill Period Under the Consent Order Granting the BSA’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction Pursuant to 1] U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 362 [Adv. Docket No. 72] (the “First Stipulation
and Agreed Order”), which extended the Termination Date of the Standstill Period up to and
including June 8, 2020.
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Second Stipulation and
Agreed Order By and Among the Boy Scouts of America, the Official Committee of Survivors of
Abuse, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Modifying the Consent Order
Granting the BSA’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and
Mobo t-t& RK 3M
INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COU 1272872021 06:2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 V@ U: 2 Doc I9S-L TET. LT7UST.
age PEMD NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
362 and Further Extending the Termination Date of the Standstill Period [Adv. Docket No. 77]
(the “Second Stipulation and Agreed Order’), which extended the Termination Date of the
Standstill Period up to and including November 16, 2020.
WHEREAS, the Second Stipulation and Agreed Order deleted Paragraph 12 of the
Consent Order and replaced it with the following provision pertaining to the procedures for
obtaining further extensions of the Termination Date of the Standstill Period:
The Termination Date may be extended by either (1) mutual agreement among the
BSA, the UCC and the TCC, which shall be memorialized in a stipulation filed
with the Court (an “Extension Notice”); or (2) motion filed by the BSA (an
“Extension Motion”), which, in either case, shall be filed no later than twenty-five
(25) days prior to the Termination Date and served on plaintiffs to Pending Abuse
Actions or, as the case may be, Further Abuse Actions (through their counsel of
record in any such Pending Abuse Action or Further Abuse Action) and any other
party served with notice thereof. Any plaintiff in a Pending Abuse Action or
Further Abuse Action may object to such extension of the Termination Date as to
such plaintiff's Pending Abuse Action or Further Abuse Action by filing with the
Bankruptcy Court, within fourteen (14) days of the date of an Extension Notice or
Extension Motion, an objection setting forth the basis for its objection (an
“Extension Objection”). An Objecting Party shall serve any Extension Objection
on the undersigned counsel to the TCC, the UCC and the BSA, and counsel to any
affected BSA Related Party or Additional BSA Related Party or their counsel of
record. No more than seven (7) days following the deadline by which Extension
Objections must be filed, the BSA, the UCC, the TCC, and Local Council
Committee shall be authorized to file a single omnibus reply to any Extension
Objections filed with the Bankruptcy Court. Notwithstanding the filing of an
Extension Objection by any plaintiff, the Termination Date shall be extended as to
any plaintiff who does not object to the Extension Notice.
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2020, the BSA and the Committees filed with the
Bankruptcy Court the Third Stipulation By and Among the Boy Scouts of America, the Official
Committee of Survivors of Abuse, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Modifying
the Consent Order Granting the BSA’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to 11
U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 362 and Further Extending the Termination Date of the Standstill Period
[Adv. Docket No. 107-1] (the “Third Stipulation”).
3M
7 INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COU NT Y cL ERK 3/2021
127287 0
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 VASE 40 TET y OST
Age PEMD NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Third
Stipulation, entering the Order Approving Third Stipulation by and Among the Boy Scouts of
America, the Official Committee of Survivors of Abuse, and the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors Modifying the Consent Order Granting the BSA’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
Pursuant to 1] U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 362 and Further Extending the Termination Date of the
Standstill Period [Adv. Docket No. 116] (the “Order Approving Third Stipulation”), which
extended the Termination Date of the Standstill Period up to and including March 19, 2021
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021 the BSA and the Committees filed with the Bankruptcy
Court the Fourth Stipulation By and Among the Boy Scouts of America, the Official Committee of
Survivors of Abuse, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Modifying the Consent
Order Granting the BSA’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a)
and 362 and Further Extending the Termination Date of the Standstill Period [Adv. Docket No.
151] (the “Fourth Stipulation”)
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Fourth Stipulation.
entering the Order Approving Fourth Stipulation by and Among the Boy Scouts of America, the
Official Committee of Survivors of Abuse, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
Modifying the Consent Order Granting the BSA’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pursuant
to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 362 and Further Extending the Termination Date of the Standstill
Period [Adv. Docket No. 162] (the “Order Approving Fourth Stipulation”), which extended the
Termination Date of the Standstill Period up to and including July 19, 2021
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2021 the BSA and the Committees filed with the Bankruptcy
Court the Fifth Stipulation By and Among the Boy Scouts of America, the Official Committee of
Survivors of Abuse, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Modifying the Consent
3M
7 INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COU NT Y cL ERK 3/2021
127287 0
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 VASE 40 TET y OST
age GPE NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
Order Granting the BSA’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a)
and 362 and Further Extending the Termination Date of the Standstill Period [Adv. Docket No.
178] (the “Fifth Stipulation”)
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Fifth Stipulation.
entering the Order Approving Fifth Stipulation by and Among the Boy Scouts of America, the
Official Committee of Survivors of Abuse, and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
Modifying the Consent Order Granting the BSA’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pursuant
to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 362 and Further Extending the Termination Date of the Standstill
Period (Adv. Docket No. 185] (the “Order Approving Fifth Stipulation”), which extended the
Termination Date of the Standstill Period up to and including October 28, 2021
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, the Court entered the Order (I) Approving the
Disclosure Statement and the Form of Manner of Notice, (II) Approving Plan Solicitation and
Voting Procedures, (III) Approving Forms of Ballots, (IV) Approving Form, Manner, and Scope
of Confirmation Notices, (V) Establishing Certain Deadlines in Connection with Approval of the
Disclosure Statement and Confirmation of the Plan, and (VI) Granting Related Relief [Docket
No. 6438] (the “Solicitation Procedures Order”) The Solicitation Procedures Order
(1) approved the Amended Disclosure Statement for the Modified Fifth Amended Chapter 11
Plan of Reorganization for Boy Scouts of America and Delaware BSA, LLC [Docket No. 6445]
as containing “adequate information” within the meaning of section 1125(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code and (2) authorized the Debtors to solicit votes to accept or reject the Modified Fifth
Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for Boy Scouts of America and Delaware BSA
LLC [Docket No. 6443] (as such may be amended or modified from time to time, the “Plan”)
Mobo t-t& RK 3M
INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COU 1272872021 06:2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 V@ U: 2 Doc I9S-L TET. LT7UST.
age REPEMVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
WHEREAS, the Plan provides for the issuance of a Channeling Injunction that will
permanently enjoin (1) the assertion of Abuse Claims against the Protected Parties, which
include the Local Councils and Contributing Chartered Organizations, among others, and (2) the
assertion of Post-1975 Chartered Organization Abuse Claims against the Limited Protected
Parties, each as further described in Article X.F of the Plan.*
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to a further extension of the Termination Date of the
Standstill Period as set forth in Paragraph 3 hereof, subject to the terms and conditions as set
forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE
UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, AND THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT HEREBY ORDERS, AS FOLLOWS:
1 Effectiveness. This Sixth Stipulation shall become effective upon execution by
counsel for each of the BSA, the TCC, and the UCC and entry of an order of the Bankruptcy
Court approving this Sixth Stipulation, and every term hereof shall be effective as if expressly set
forth in the Consent Order. For the avoidance of doubt, no Local Council is being ordered to
comply with the terms of the Sixth Stipulation or is being ordered to take any of the actions
described in Paragraphs 4 through 8 hereof; rather, if the order approving the Sixth Stipulation is
entered, the terms in Paragraphs 4 through 8 simply set out the terms under which the TCC
and/or the UCC can seek to terminate the Preliminary Injunction (as set forth in Paragraph 9)
with respect to a particular Local Council that has not complied with the terms set out in
Paragraphs 4 through 8 of this Sixth Stipulation.
3 Capitalized terms used in this recital but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such
terms in the Plan.
Mobo t-t& RK 3M
INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COU 1272872021 06:2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 V@ U: 2 Doc I9S-L TET. LT7UST.
age PEMD NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
2 Notice. This Sixth Stipulation constitutes good and sufficient notice in
accordance with Paragraph 12 of the Consent Order, as modified by Paragraph 8 of the Second
Stipulation and Agreed Order, and no other or further notice of the extension of the Termination
Date ofthe Standstill Period pursuant to this Sixth Stipulation is or shall be required.
3 Extension of Termination Date of Standstill Period. In accordance with the terms
of the Consent Order, as modified by the First Stipulation and Agreed Order, the Second
Stipulation and Agreed Order, the Order Approving Third Stipulation, the Order Approving
Fourth Stipulation, the Order Approving Fifth Stipulation, and this Sixth Stipulation, and without
prejudice to future requests for further extensions of the Termination Date of the Standstill
Period consistent with the terms thereof, the Pending Abuse Actions and the Further Abuse
Actions identified on Schedule 1 attached hereto (as such schedule may be further amended
from time to time) are hereby stayed as to the BSA Related Parties identified on Schedule 2
attached hereto (as such schedule may be further amended from time to time) up to and including
the date of the first omnibus hearing after the Bankruptcy Court issues its decision confirming or
denying confirmation of the Plan (the “Extended Termination Date”).
4 Acknowledgment and Agreement. The terms of the form of Acknowledgment
and Agreement, attached to the Second Stipulation and Agreed Order as Exhibit 4, are
incorporated by reference herein and shall continue to apply with full force and effect until the
Extended Termination Date of the Standstill Period.
5 Preservation and Production of Rosters. The BSA and the Local Councils shall
continue to make diligent and reasonable efforts to preserve and keep intact all historical troop
and camp rosters that describe by name the Scouting youth, adult volunteers, Scouting
volunteers, and chartered organizations (“Rosters”) in the possession, custody, or control of the
Mobo t-t& RK 3M
INDEX NO. 950971/2021
(FILED: NEW YORK COU 1272872021 06:2
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 V@ U: 2 Doc I9S-L TET. LT7UST.
age PPE NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
BSA or the Local Councils, as applicable, in all locations where they may be found in the
manner in which Rosters were collected or created and filed in the ordinary course of operations.
All rights and obligations related to preservation of Rosters and related information contained in
the Third Stipulation, Fourth Stipulation, and Fifth Stipulation are incorporated by reference
herein and shall continue to apply with full force and effect, as applicable and except as
otherwise provided herein, until the Extended Termination Date of the Standstill Period.
6. Transfers of Local Council Assets. Unless and until the preliminary injunction is
terminated as to a Local Council, no Local Council shall (a) sell, transfer, or encumber any real
or personal property or other assets unless it receives value that is reasonably equivalent to the
value of the property or assets that it sells, transfers, or encumbers or (b) sell, transfer, or
encumber any real or personal property or other assets with actual intent to hinder, delay, or
defraud creditors or the estates (or their creditors). For the avoidance of doubt, the transfer of
property or assets to a trust, foundation, charity or non-profit, or any asset protection or asset
shielding vehicle for inadequate consideration is expressly prohibited under this provision
without regard to the rationale for such transfer. The Local Councils shall make diligent and
reasonable efforts to preserve and keep intact all documents and information relating to any
transfers of real or personal property or other assets made during the pendency of the Debtors’
chapter 11 cases.
7
Designation of Assets. Local Councils shall not designate unrestricted assets as
restricted by board resolution or otherwise, including the proceeds from sale of assets.
8 Use and Treatment of Local Council Confidential Information. The BSA and the
TCC agree to the following protocol regarding the use of information produced by the Local
4 Notwithstanding anything in this paragraph, nothing herein shall prejudice any party’s right to assert that the
transfer of any assets to any of the entities identified in the foregoing sentence is an actual fraudulent transfer,
without regard to the adequacy or value of consideration provided.
aK INDEX NO. 950971/2021
M7 RK_12/ [20 3 A
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 VOS® DO
9 APGHHER nvSCEF: 12/28/2021
Councils, or BSA that relates to the Local Councils, that was designated as confidential and
governed by the Protective Order (as defined below).
Pursuant to the Order Approving Confidentiality and Protective Order entered
June 8, 2020 [Docket No. 799] (the “Protective Order” ), the BSA and certain
of the Local Councils have designated documents and information made
available to the TCC as either “CONFIDENTIAL,” “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL” or “COMMITTEE ADVISOR ONLY” as those terms are
defined in the Protective Order (collectively, the “Confidential
Designations”).
il The BSA and the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils agree that
notwithstanding any Confidential Designations and any provisions of the
Protective Order to the contrary, the TCC may treat the following materials as
non-confidential when such documents are used in a filing, at a hearing, or in
communications with its constituency, in either case in connection with the
above-captioned Chapter 11 Case: 5 (a) summaries, presentations or
compilations (collectively, the “Summaries”)® derived from material subject
to Confidential Designations; (b) testimony concerning the summaries,
presentations or compilations, including, without limitation, testimony related
to their admissibility; provided, however, that (i) the Summaries, and any
5 For the avoidance of doubt, the parties agree only that the materials described herein may be treated as non-
confidential to the extent provided for in the Sixth Stipulation, and reserve the right to object to the use of these
materials on any other basis.
© For the avoidance of doubt, the Local Council “dashboards” that the TCC’s advisors previously prepared and
produced to the BSA and Local Councils are included among any “Summaries” prepared by the TCC. In addition,
the appraisals prepared by the BSA regarding Local Councils’ properties shall not be subject to any Confidential
Designations. The BSA further agrees to cooperate with the TCC in good faith to identify additional categories of
information, if any, that are not subject to Confidential Designations.
INDEX NO. 950971/2021
M7 RK_12/ [202
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 VOS® DO a
9 REGHHER NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
testimony concerning the Summaries, shall not include personally identifying
information, including, without limitation, donor information, and (ii) prior to
using a Summary in a filing, at a hearing, or in communications with its
constituency, the TCC shall provide seven (7) calendar days’ notice and a
copy of the Summary to the party that designated as confidential the
information contained in any Summary, with a copy to the BSA and the Ad
Hoc Committee of Local Councils. If the subject party or parties do not object
within the seven (7) calendar day period, the TCC shall be free to use the
Summary in a filing, at a hearing, or in communications with its constituency
without any redactions. If an objection is received within the seven (7)
calendar day period and it cannot be resolved by the TCC and the designating
party or parties, the TCC may seek relief from the Court to allow the non-
confidential treatment of the Summary. If the Summary concerns pooled
financial or valuation data designated by more than one Local Council, the
TCC need only provide notice and the opportunity to object to the BSA and
the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
nothing in this Stipulation shall impact the requirement that documents
produced pursuant to the Protective Order may only be used in the Chapter 11
Cases.
iii. If the TCC intends to file with the Court or use a document(s) that is subject to
a Confidential Designation as opposed to a Summary that was derived from
the Confidential Designations of such document(s), the re-designation of such
document shall be subject to the protocol in the Protective Order.
10
INDEX NO. 950971/2021
M7 RK_12/ [202
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 VOS® DO a
9 REGGE NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
iv. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Sixth Stipulation, the
notification protocol described in this Paragraph 8 shall be effective ten (10)
calendar days after execution of this Sixth Stipulation and filing with the
Court. For the avoidance of doubt, the TCC shall be entitled to provide the
notice referenced in Paragraph 8(ii) only after the expiration of such ten (10)
calendar day period.
9 Termination of Preliminary Injunction. The preliminary injunction shall continue
to be subject to termination on the conditions and to the extent provided in Paragraph 9 of the
Fourth Stipulation and Fifth Stipulation; provided that, and for the avoidance of doubt, a Local
Council’s exercise of its rights to object to the use of a document(s) pursuant to Paragraph 8(ii)
and (iii) hereof shall not be considered a violation of the terms of the preliminary injunction, nor
shall it give the TCC the right to terminate the preliminary injunction with respect to that Local
Council.
10. Immediate Effect. Notwithstanding Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h), the terms and
conditions of this Sixth Stipulation are immediately effective and enforceable upon entry of an
order of the Bankruptcy Court approving this Sixth Stipulation.
11. Authorization to File. The BSA is authorized to file a copy of this Sixth
Stipulation (including the schedules attached hereto) with any court in which a Pending Abuse
Action or Further Abuse Action is or may hereafter become pending as proof that such action is
stayed and enjoined as set forth herein and in the Consent Order.
12. Reservation of Rights. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit or affect any
party’s right to seek appropriate relief from this Court to the extent necessary to respond to any
actions by a court in which a Pending Abuse Action or Further Abuse Action is pending, which,
11
YORK INDEX NO. 950971/2021
JN} [20
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 VOS® DO ed a
9 REGGE NYSCEF: 12/28/2021
but for the stay provided herein and in the Consent Order, would require a party to act before the
Extended Termination Date of the Standstill Period.
13. Retention of Jurisdiction. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to hear and
determine all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation and/or
enforcement of this Sixth Stipulation and the Consent Order.
14. Headings. Headings ofthe decretal paragraphs of this Sixth Stipulation have been
inserted for convenience of reference only and are not intended to be a part of or to affect the
interpretation of this Sixth Stipulation.
15. Filing with Clerk. This Sixth Stipulation shall be promptly filed in the clerk’s
office and entered into the record.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
12
aK INDEX NO. 950971/2021
M7 RK_12/ [20 3 A
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11 VOS® Do
Oe REGHHES NYSCEF 12/28/2021
CONSENTED TO BY:
PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP
WHITE & CASE LLP
/s/ James E, O'Neill
Jessica C. Lauria (admitted pro hac vice)
James I. Stang (admitted pro hac vice)
1221 Avenue of the Americas
Robert B. Orgel (admitted pro hac vice)
New York, New York 10020
John A. Morris (admitted pro hac vice)
Telephone: (212) 819-8200
James E. O’Neill (No. 4042)
Email: jessica.lauria@whitecase.com
John W. Lucas (admitted pro hac vice)
919 N. Market Street, 17th Floor
—and—
P.O. Box 8705
Wilmington, DE 1999-8705 (Courier 19801)
WHITE & CASE LLP
Telephone: (302) 652-4100
Michael C. Andolina (admitted pro hac vice)
Facsimile: (302) 652-4400
Matthew E. Linder (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: jstang@pszjlaw.com
Laura E. Baccash (admitted pro hac vice)
rorgel@pszjlaw.com
Blair M. Warner (admitted pro hac vice)
jmorris@pszjlaw.com
111 South Wacker Drive
joneill@pszjlaw.com
Chicago, Illinois 60606
jlucas@pszjlaw.com
Telephone: (312) 881-5400
Email: mandolina@whitecase.com
Attorneys
for the Official Tort Claimants’ Committee
mlinder@whitecase.com
laura.baccash@whitecase.com REED SMITH LLP
blair.warner@whitecase.com Kurt F. Gwynne (No. 3951)
Katelin A. Morales (No. 6683)
—and— 1201 North Market Street, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Telephone: (302) 778-7500
Facsimile: (302) 778-7575
/s/ Paige N. Topper Email: kgwynne@reedsmith.com
Derek C. Abbott (No. 3376) kmorales@reedsmith.com
Andrew R. Remming (No. 5120)
Paige N. Topper (No. 6470) —and—
1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
P.O. Box 1347 KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1347 & FRANKEL LLP
Telephone: (302) 658-9200 /s/ Megan Wasson
Email: dabbott@morrisnichols.com
Thomas Moers Mayer (admitted pro hac vice)
aremming@morrisnichols.com
Rachael Ringer (admitted pro hac vice)
ptopper@morrisnichols.com
Jennifer Sharret (admitted pro hac vice)
Megan Wasson (admitted pro hac vice)
Attorneys
for the Boy Scouts of America
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 715-9100
Facsimile: (212) 715-8000
Email: tmayer@kramerlevin.com
rringer@kramerlevin.com
dblabey@kramerlevin.com
jsharret@kramerlevin.com
‘mwasson@kramerlevin.com
Attorneys for the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors
Related Content
in New York County
Case
Shakina Sumi, Mohammad Khan v. Reena Parikh M.D., Sasha H. Beovich P.A., Erica Burke Pa-C, Katrina Bradley M.D., Eun-Je Lee M.D., The New York And Presbyterian Hospital
Jul 08, 2024 |
Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |
Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |
805191/2024
Case
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. All City Family Healthcare Center, Inc., American Medical Initiatives, P.C., Barry A. Baker, M.D., Central Supplies Of Ny Corp., Centurion Midtown Medical, Pllc, City Medical Of Upper East Side, Pllc, Ds Msk Consultants, Inc., Esther Chaim Medical, P.C., Ezrah Medical, P.C., Health Wellness Medical Services, Pllc, Ipills Pharmacy, Inc., Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings A/K/A Labcorp Of America, Medex Diagnostic And Treatment Center, Llc, Modern Wellness Np In Family Health, P.L.L.C., Mosaic Diagnostic Imaging, Pllc, Naturalife Chiropractic, P.C., Nextstep Healing, Inc., Portal Medical, P.C., Right Choice Supply, Inc., Right Motion P.T., P.C., Sedation Vacation Perioperative Medicine, Pllc, U.K. Sinha Physician, P.C., Upendra Sinha, M.D., Nilhec J. Diaz, Kervin Omar Otero Nieves
Jul 11, 2024 |
Torts - Other (Declaratory Judgment) |
Torts - Other (Declaratory Judgment) |
156321/2024
Ruling
K. QUILLIN VS. NOELLE BECKER MORENO ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC24611734
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 11. DEFENDANT NOELLE MORENO's MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT. Off calendar for noncompliance with Local Rule 2.7(B) (courtesy copies). The motion may be re-set for a Mon.-Thurs. after July 24, with papers to bear new hearing date. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. 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. 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/RBU)
Ruling
ARMEN BEGOYAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
Jul 11, 2024 |
21STCV34525
Case Number:
21STCV34525
Hearing Date:
July 11, 2024
Dept:
32
PLEASE NOTE
:
Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.
If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at
sscdept32@lacourt.org
indicating that partys intention to submit.
The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.
If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.
Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court
.
TENTATIVE RULING
DEPT
:
32
HEARING DATE
:
July 11, 2024
CASE NUMBER
:
21STCV34525
MOTIONS
:
Motion for Terminating Sanctions
MOVING PARTY:
Defendant City of Los Angeles
OPPOSING PARTY:
None
BACKGROUND
Defendant City of Los Angeles (
Defendant) moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff
Armen Begoyan (Plaintiff) for failure to comply with the Courts April 26, 2024 discovery order. Defendant seeks to dismiss the entire action. No opposition has been filed.
LEGAL STANDARD
To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose&sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2023.030.) The court may impose a terminating sanction for misuse of the discovery process by any of the following: (1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process; (2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed; (3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party; (4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(d).)
Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery, or
disobeying a court order to provide discovery,
constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d), (g).)
The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery. (
Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez
(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390, quoting
Lang v. Hochman
(2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)
Generally, [a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly.
But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction. (
Los Defensores, supra
, 223 Cal. App. 4th at p. 390 [citation omitted].)
Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders. (
Los Defensores, supra
, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 citing
Lang, supra
, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 [discussing cases]; see, e.g.,
Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian
(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 [terminating sanctions imposed (by striking the defendants Answer and subsequently granting default judgment) after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery];
Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in
Garcia v. McCutchen
(1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4 [terminating sanctions imposed against the plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes].)
If a party . . . fails to obey an order compelling answers [to interrogatories or requests for production], the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c); 2031.300(c).)
DISCUSSION
Written discovery was originally served on Plaintiff on March 1, 2023. (Kahramanian Decl. ¶ 2.) On September 21, 2023 and January 11, 2024, Defendants counsel emailed Plaintiffs counsel requesting responses but received no response. (
Id.
¶ 3.)
On April 26, 2024, the Court granted
Defendants unopposed motion to compel Plaintiffs responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff was ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, within 10 days. (Min. Order, 4/26/24.) The Court also imposed $700.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record.
On May 2, 2024, Defendant filed and served electronic notice of the ruling on Plaintiffs counsel. Defendant contends that no responses have been served complying with the Courts order. (Kahramanian Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion.
Therefore, it appears that the discovery was first served in March 2023, and the motion to compel was granted on April 26, 2024. Throughout this time, Defendant sought to obtain responses through informal ways before ultimately obtaining an order to compel. The delay in time also demonstrates that Defendant has been prevented from mounting a defense against this case. Considering the above, the fact Plaintiff did not oppose this motion nor the previous motion to compel, and monetary sanctions have been ineffective, the Court finds Plaintiffs actions to be willful. Therefore, the motion for terminating sanctions is granted.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, Defendant
City of Los Angeles
motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. The only remaining defendants are Doe Defendants who have not been named or served, and therefore t
he Court orders the complaint dismissed in its entirety.
If Defendant moves to dismiss the cross-complaint at the hearing on this motion, then the Final Status Conference and Jury Trial dates will be advanced and vacated.
Defendant shall provide notice of the Courts ruling and file a proof of service of such.
Ruling
Gilbert Hernandez vs. In-Shape Health Clubs, LLC
Jul 11, 2024 |
20CV-02521
20CV-02521 Gilbert Hernandez v. In-Shape Health Clubs LLC
Trial Settng Conference
Appearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appear
remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remote
appearance. Appear to address the status of case following the unsuccessful mediation
and whether it is time to set this matter for trial.
Ruling
SOCORRO ALEGRIA VS ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Jul 11, 2024 |
24PSCV00032
Case Number:
24PSCV00032
Hearing Date:
July 11, 2024
Dept:
K
1.
Defendant AltaMed Health Services Corporations Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is summarily GRANTED in part (i.e., as to the fifth, sixth and tenth causes of action) and otherwise DENIED in part (i.e., as to the eighth and ninth causes of action).
2.
Defendant AltaMed Health Services Corporations Motion to Strike is DENIED as MOOT.
Background
Plaintiff Socorro Alegria (Plaintiff) alleges as follows: Plaintiff was sexually assaulted during her March 22, 2023 medical imaging appointment. On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against AltaMed Health Services Corporation (AltaMed), Jose Luis Sanchez and Does 1-20 for:
1.
Negligent Hiring Retention, Supervision and Failure to Terminate (v. AltaMed only)
2.
Common Law Assault (v. Sanchez only)
3.
Common Law Battery (v. Sanchez only)
4.
Sexual Battery in Violation of Civil Code § 1708.5 (v. Sanchez only)
5.
Violation of Civil Code § 51.7
6.
Sexual Harassment in Violation of Civil Code § 51.9
7.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (v. Sanchez only)
8.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
9.
Negligence (v. AltaMed only)
10.
Violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act A Case Management Conference is set for July 11, 2024.
1.
Judgment on the Pleadings
Legal Standard
The rules governing demurrers are generally applicable to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (
Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp.
(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999; Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d) [The grounds for motion. . . shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. Where the motion is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. . ., the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit].)
A motion by a plaintiff may only be made on the grounds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) A motion by a defendant may only be made on the grounds that (1) [t]he court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint or (2) [t]he complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c).)
Although a nonstatutory motion may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself (
Stoops v. Abbassi
(2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [quotation marks and citation omitted]), a statutory motion cannot be made after entry of a pretrial conference order or 30 days before the initial trial date, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (e).)
Discussion
AltaMed moves the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 438, for judgment on the pleadings as to the fifth, sixth, and eighth through tenth (i.e., for
Violation of Civil Code § 51.7, Sexual Harassment in Violation of Civil Code § 51.9, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligence and Violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, respectively)
causes of action in Plaintiffs complaint, on the basis that they each fail to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action.
At the outset, Plaintiff represents that she agrees to dismiss her fifth, sixth and tenth causes of action, without prejudice (Opp., 1:26-2:2); accordingly, in the event a Request for Dismissal is not on file by the time of the hearing, the court will summarily grant the motion in this regard.
The courts following analysis, then, is limited to Plaintiffs eighth and ninth causes of action, for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligence, respectively:
AltaMed asserts that these causes of action fail because it cannot be held vicariously liable for an alleged sexual assault by its employee. [A]n employer is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed within the scope of the employment. (
Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
(1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 296.) However, [a]n
employer will not be held liable for an assault or other intentional tort that did not have a causal nexus to the employee's work. (
Id.
at 297).
The court construes Plaintiffs eighth and ninth causes of action as sounding in direct negligence, rather than vicarious liability. Further, while AltaMed contends that these causes of action are surplusage, this argument was raised for the first time in the reply; as such, it is disregarded. The motion is denied in this regard.
2.
Motion to Strike
AltaMed moves the court for an order striking out the following language from Plaintiffs complaint:
1.
Page 12, paragraph 68, lines 6-12;
2.
Page 13, paragraph 79, lines 9-15;
3.
Page 16, paragraph 102, lines 18-24;
4.
Page 17, paragraph 7, line 13;
5.
Page 17, paragraph 9, line 15;
6.
Page 17, paragraph 10, line 16. AltaMeds request is denied as moot. All of the allegations AltaMed seeks to have stricken pertain to the fifth, sixth and tenth causes of action, which Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss.
Ruling
Thompson, Harry Fayne III vs. Rose, Steven Leon et al
Jul 22, 2024 |
S-CV-0052451
S-CV-0052451 Thompson, Harry Fayne III vs. Rose, Steven Leon et al
No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/14/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6.
Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to
Defendant(s): Grossman, Marilyn Joy
Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Rose, Steven
Leon
Ruling
TODD BERTRANG, ET AL. VS IVORY HOLDINGS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
Jul 09, 2024 |
21STCV42736
Case Number:
21STCV42736
Hearing Date:
July 9, 2024
Dept:
S25 Procedural Background Plaintiffs, Todd Bertrang (Bertrang) and Ophie Beltran (Beltran) (collectively, Plaintiffs) sued Defendants, Lido Sailing Club, Inc. (Lido), Ivory Holdings, LLC (Ivory), and Scott Vollero (Vollero) based on injuries Plaintiffs allege they sustained from Bertrangs exposure to hazardous chemicals. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on November 18, 2021, and filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on May 4, 2022. Notably, Plaintiffs did not serve any party prior to filing their FAC, and no party responded to the original complaint. On September 8, 2022, the Court sustained Lido Sailing Club, LLCs demurrer to the FAC with leave to amend. (September 8, 2022 Minute Order.) On September 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (SAC). On October 5, 2022, Lido filed a demurrer to the SAC. Shortly thereafter, the personal injury hub court found the case complicated and transferred it to Long Beach for all further proceedings. On January 12, 2023, Lido re-filed its demurrer to the SAC in Department S27. On June 27, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the demurrer, finding the parties had not adequately met and conferred prior to filing their papers. On July 27, 2023, the Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. On September 20, 2023, rather than amending the SAC, Plaintiffs dismissed Lido from the case. On December 21, 2023, Defendants Ivory Holdings and Vollero filed a demurrer with the motion to strike portions of the SAC. On January 23, 2024, the Court sustained the demurrer with leave to 20 days amend as to the NIED cause of action and alter ego liability cause of action and overruled the strict liability for ultrahazardous activity cause of action, the violation of Health and Safety Code, § 25359.7, cause of action and the IIED cause of action; the Court also granted the motion to strike without leave to amend as to punitive damages and related allegations. (January 23, 2024 Minute Order.) On April 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) more than two months after the Courts January 23 order. Meet and Confer Defendant Volleros counsel states that he sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs counsel on May 17, 2024 detailing issues with the TAC and his availability for a telephonic meet and confer at least 5 days prior to filing the instant motions. (Rasmussen Decl.1, ¶ 5, Exh. B.) Defendant Volleros counsel states that Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to the meet and confer attempt. (Id., at ¶ 6.) In opposition, Plaintiffs counsel argues Defendant Volleros counsel failed to meet and confer because the issues were not discussed in person or by telephone as required under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5. Notwithstanding the parties conflicting ideas of meet and confer, it is very likely an informal attempt to resolve the matter would have been unsuccessful. Analysis 1. Delay in Filing of Third Amended Complaint Code Civ. Proc., § 472b, states that: [w] hen a demurrer to any pleading is sustained or overruled, and time to amend or answer is given, the time so given runs from the service of notice of the decision or order, unless the notice is waived in open court, and the waiver entered in the minutes. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 7:145; Cano v. Glover (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 326, 329-330.) After expiration of the time in which a pleading can be amended as a matter of course, the pleading can only be amended by obtaining the permission of the court. (Leader v. Health Indus. of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 603, 613.) While a court has discretion to require a noticed motion before permitting a plaintiff to file an amended complaint late, a court also has the discretion to accept a filing without a noticed motion. (Harlan v. Dep't of Transportation (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 868, 873.) The Court exercises its discretion and accepts Plaintiffs untimely filed Third Amended Complaint without a noticed motion. 2. Second Amended Complaint Holding (Alter Ego) On January 23, 2024, Judge Mark Kim sustained Defendant Volleros Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Judge Kim ruled: All claims against Volero are plead on an alter ego theory. Plaintiffs alter ego allegations are found at ¶6 of the SAC, and merely allege that each defendant was acting as the alter ego of each other defendant. Relying on Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Playa del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App. 221, 236, Judge Kim held: Plaintiffs herein failed to allege any of the ultimate facts showing alter ego liability. They failed to allege unity of interest, domination and control, inadequate capitalization, etc. Voleros demurrer is therefore sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs must allege ultimate facts showing imposition of liability against Volero would be proper. (See January 23, 2024 Minute Order, Legal Standard on Demurrer, Alter Ego Liability, 3(h)). 3. Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint (Alter Ego) A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing partys pleading. It is error for the trial court to sustain a demurrer if the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory, and it is an abuse of discretion for the court to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff has shown there is a reasonable possibility a defect can be cured by amendment. California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 242, 247. The burden is on the complainant to show in what manner and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Plaintiffs allegations of alter ego in the TAC are found at ¶ 3 and 6. These allegations are identical to the alter ego allegations found at ¶ 3 and ¶6 of the SAC. No additional facts or allegations have been added by Plaintiffs. As discussed, Judge Kim found those allegations deficient as Plaintiff failed to allege any of the ultimate facts showing alter ego liability and failed to allege unity of interest, domination and control, inadequate capitalization. (January 23, 2024 Minute Order). In sum, Plaintiffs completely failed to amend or modify their operative pleading in any manner or in compliance with Judge Kims ruling. In Plaintiffs opposition, Plaintiffs request leave to amend by suggesting three new facts, previously unknown, support the theory of alter ego between Vollero and Ivory Holdings. These facts are: (1) and (2) on August 16, 2016, two separate Deeds of Trust were recorded against the subject premises with Vollero as the Beneficiary and (3) Vollero, as an individual, performed the alleged remediation of the toxic chemicals which are alleged to have harmed Plaintiffs. Assuming the new facts found in Plaintiffs Opposition are true, Plaintiffs have not met their burden demonstrating how or in what manner these new allegations support of finding that a reasonable possibility exist for Plaintiffs to cure the defects and successfully pled a theory of alter ego. (Reeder v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 795, 805.) These additional facts show no connection between Vollero and Ivory Holdings. Even with the inclusion of those three allegations, Plaintiffs operative pleading would fail to allege any of the ultimate facts showing an alter ego theory as set forth in Rutherford (e.g. allegations of unity of interest, domination and control, inadequate capitalization). 4. Ruling The Court sustains Defendant Volleros Demurrer without leave to amend. Defendant Volleros motion to strike is now moot.
Ruling
Luis Kutz, et al vs Jennifer Fribourgh, et al
Jul 11, 2024 |
23CV01711
23CV01711
KUTZ et al. v. FRIBOURGH et al.
(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED
The unopposed motions are denied without prejudice. Counsel must refile to reflect
correct upcoming hearing dates in the declarations and proposed orders.
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order
incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the
tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in
accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the
prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is
simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of
sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
Page 1 of 1
Ruling
Dryden, Donna vs Tri Counties Bank
Jul 10, 2024 |
23CV03115
23CV03115 Dryden, Donna et al. v. Tri Counties Bank
EVENT: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate and Appoint Interim Class Counsel
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate and Appoint Interim Class Counsel is GRANTED. Defendant
shall file a responsive pleading within 60 days of the date of this order. The Court will sign the
proposed order with the noted modification.
Document
Patrick Strickland v. W.I.P. Club, Inc., Barry Mullineaux, Collective Hardware, Inc., John Bakhishi, Lina Kay, Hirukuni Sai, John C. Best, Frank Porco, Merlin Bobb-Willis, 150 Rft Varick Corp., 150 Rft Varick Basement Llc, W. & M. Operating, L.L.C., Aubrey Graham Drake a/k/a DRAKE, Allstar Security & Consulting, Inc., Christopher Maurice Brown a/k/a CHRIS BROWN
Apr 08, 2013 |
Anil Singh
|
Tort |
Tort |
153185/2013
Document
Melania Rodriguez and RYAN LUNT, as Parents and Natural Guardians of Z.L, Melania Rodriguez, Ryan Lunt Individually v. Nicholas James Buffin M.D., Valerie Lewis-Morris M.D., Emily Schmidt-Beuchat M.D., Hope S. Langer M.D., Youyin Choy M.D., Lois Brustman M.D., Susan Rothenberg M.D., Helaine Worrell M.D., Mount Sinai West, West Care Medical, P.C.,, Faculty Practice Associates-Mount Sinai Hospital,, Midtown Ob/Gyn
Mar 15, 2021 |
John J. Kelley
|
Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |
Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |
805086/2021