Preview
MOA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Apr-08-2011 4:20 pm
Case Number: CGC-10-505594
Filing Date: Apr-08-2011 4:20
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03177637
ORDER
OULA VASILOGIORGIS VS. DONALD A. GLAZER, AS TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZER LIVIN
001003177637
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.GARY ALABASTER, STATE BAR NO. 99234
DAVID A. SAUERS, STATE BAR NO. 104863
THE SAPIRO LAW FIRM
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 440
San Francisco, CA 94102-3270
Telephone: (415) 771-0100
Facsimile: (415) 771-3142
Attorneys for Defendant
Alice Glazer
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
FOULA VASILOGIORGIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DONALD A. GLAZER, et. al.,
Defendants.
Case No. CGC 10 505594
4PROPUSEBR
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Date: December 15, 2010
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept. 302
Complaint Filed: November 24, 2010
Plaintiff Foula Vasilogiorgis’ application for a preliminary injunction, to
enjoin the foreclosure sale of her real property, located at 579 Connecticut Street, in the
City and County of San Francisco, State of California, came on for hearing at
approximately 9:30 a.m., on December 15, 2010, in Department 302 of the above-entitled
Court, pursuant to the Order on Ex Parte Application for TRO and OSC entered by the
Court on November 24, 2010.
The Honorable Charlotte W. Woolard presided at the hearing of plaintiff's
application. Richard C. Sinclair appeared for the Plaintiff and Gary Alabaster, appeared
for Defendant Alice Glazer.
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1The Court, having considered the papers and the argument of counsel
submitted in support of and in opposition to the application, and good cause appearing
therefor,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs application for a preliminary
injunction is denied. Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
IT HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the Court’s equitable
powers, that the foreclosure sale set for December 17, 2010 be vacated.
IT HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that defendants may record a new
notice of trustee’s sale on or after January 20, 2011, with the trustee’s sale to occur on or
after February 14, 2011.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, that to keep in place the temporary
“stay” of the trustee’s sale ordered herein, commencing on January 1, 2011, and until
either the trustee’s sale takes place, or until further order of this Court, Plaintiff shall make
payments to defendant Alice Glazer of $2,400 per month.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Dated:
Richard C. Sinclair,
Attorney for Plaintiff
Foula Vasilogiorgis
Dated: 4 | S//l wae Yun
(13090624) (Pei d
\ Judge of the Superior Cow
(ORETTS (i oo
The Honorable: a} signing this
document on behalf of the Judge who heard the cause
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 2THE SAPIRO LAW FIRM
711 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 440
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3270
(415) 771-0100
January 28, 2011
HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Charlotte Walter Woolard
Judge, San Francisco Superior Court
Department 302
San Francisco, CA 94102
re: Vasilogiorgis v. Glazer, et. al.,
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-505594
Order Denying Preliminary Injunction
Dear Judge Woolard:
I am the attorney for defendant Alice Glazer in the above-
referenced action. On December 15, 2010, I appeared before Your
Honor to oppose the plaintiff’s application for preliminary
injunction. The Court’s on-line docket sheet accurately
describes the outcome of the hearing as follows:
LAW AND MOTION 302, PLAINTIFF FOULA VASILOGIORGIS' ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO SHOW A LIKELIHOOD OF
PREVAILING ON THE MERITS. DEFENDANT AGREED TO SET THE FORECLOSURE
SALE NOT LESS THAN 45 DAYS FROM TODAY. AS LONG AS PLAINTIFF MAKES
MONTHLY PAYMENTS OF $2400 (DUE ON THE 1ST OF THE MONTH), THE
NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE WILL ISSUE ON JANUARY 20, 2011, WITH SALE
TO GO FORWARD ON FEBRUARY 14, 2011. PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT A
PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER. JUDGE: CHARLOTTE WALTER WOOLARD,
REPORTER: KENT GUBBINE, CSR #5797
Enclosed with this letter is a form of order denying preliminary
injunction that I have prepared, notwithstanding the fact that
the Court directed plaintiff's attorney to prepare the Order,
for the reasons that follow.
On January 12, 2011, I sent to plaintiff's attorney a facsimile
letter in which I indicated that I had reluctantly approved as
to its form, the “Order On Motion For Preliminary Injunction”
that he had prepared, and I transmitted with that letter, the
Order he had prepared, which I had signed to indicate my
approval of its form. A copy of my letter to plaintiff's
attorney together with the Order I had approved is enclosed with
this letter.The Honorable Charlotte Walter Woolard
January 28, 2011
Page 2
For reasons unknown to me, I understand that plaintiff's
attorney has not submitted to the Court the Order that he
prepared and that I had approved as to form. Although the date
on which my client was authorized to notice the trustee’s sale
of plaintiff’s real property has already passed, the lender
servicing company responsible for doing so will not record the
notice of sale until an Order is entered with respect to
plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction.
As I cannot compel plaintiff’s attorney to submit to the Court
the Order that he prepared, I submit the enclosed, proposed
Order so as not to further delay the recording of the notice of
sale. The Order that I am submitting for Your Honor’s signature
and entry by your clerk is completely consistent with the
Court’s orally announced Order, and with the Court’s minute
entry of its Order as stated on the docket sheet.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about
this matter. However, if the form of Order enclosed herewith is
acceptable to Your Honor, I request that you sign it and have it
entered by the clerk, and I will then pick up an endorsed-filed
copy of it.
Sincerely yours,
LEIN
GA: vy
(1309.06:31)
Enclosures
cc: Richard Sinclair, Esq. (w/copy of enclosures)
cc: Philip Adelson, Esq. (via facsimile transmission, w/copy of
enclosures)
Preview
MOA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Apr-08-2011 4:20 pm Case Number: CGC-10-505594 Filing Date: Apr-08-2011 4:20 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03177637 ORDER OULA VASILOGIORGIS VS. DONALD A. GLAZER, AS TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZER LIVIN 001003177637 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.GARY ALABASTER, STATE BAR NO. 99234 DAVID A. SAUERS, STATE BAR NO. 104863 THE SAPIRO LAW FIRM 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 440 San Francisco, CA 94102-3270 Telephone: (415) 771-0100 Facsimile: (415) 771-3142 Attorneys for Defendant Alice Glazer SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO FOULA VASILOGIORGIS, Plaintiff, vs. DONALD A. GLAZER, et. al., Defendants. Case No. CGC 10 505594 4PROPUSEBR ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Date: December 15, 2010 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept. 302 Complaint Filed: November 24, 2010 Plaintiff Foula Vasilogiorgis’ application for a preliminary injunction, to enjoin the foreclosure sale of her real property, located at 579 Connecticut Street, in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, came on for hearing at approximately 9:30 a.m., on December 15, 2010, in Department 302 of the above-entitled Court, pursuant to the Order on Ex Parte Application for TRO and OSC entered by the Court on November 24, 2010. The Honorable Charlotte W. Woolard presided at the hearing of plaintiff's application. Richard C. Sinclair appeared for the Plaintiff and Gary Alabaster, appeared for Defendant Alice Glazer. ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1The Court, having considered the papers and the argument of counsel submitted in support of and in opposition to the application, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs application for a preliminary injunction is denied. Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. IT HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the Court’s equitable powers, that the foreclosure sale set for December 17, 2010 be vacated. IT HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that defendants may record a new notice of trustee’s sale on or after January 20, 2011, with the trustee’s sale to occur on or after February 14, 2011. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, that to keep in place the temporary “stay” of the trustee’s sale ordered herein, commencing on January 1, 2011, and until either the trustee’s sale takes place, or until further order of this Court, Plaintiff shall make payments to defendant Alice Glazer of $2,400 per month. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dated: Richard C. Sinclair, Attorney for Plaintiff Foula Vasilogiorgis Dated: 4 | S//l wae Yun (13090624) (Pei d \ Judge of the Superior Cow (ORETTS (i oo The Honorable: a} signing this document on behalf of the Judge who heard the cause ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 2THE SAPIRO LAW FIRM 711 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 440 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3270 (415) 771-0100 January 28, 2011 HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Charlotte Walter Woolard Judge, San Francisco Superior Court Department 302 San Francisco, CA 94102 re: Vasilogiorgis v. Glazer, et. al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-505594 Order Denying Preliminary Injunction Dear Judge Woolard: I am the attorney for defendant Alice Glazer in the above- referenced action. On December 15, 2010, I appeared before Your Honor to oppose the plaintiff’s application for preliminary injunction. The Court’s on-line docket sheet accurately describes the outcome of the hearing as follows: LAW AND MOTION 302, PLAINTIFF FOULA VASILOGIORGIS' ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO SHOW A LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING ON THE MERITS. DEFENDANT AGREED TO SET THE FORECLOSURE SALE NOT LESS THAN 45 DAYS FROM TODAY. AS LONG AS PLAINTIFF MAKES MONTHLY PAYMENTS OF $2400 (DUE ON THE 1ST OF THE MONTH), THE NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE WILL ISSUE ON JANUARY 20, 2011, WITH SALE TO GO FORWARD ON FEBRUARY 14, 2011. PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER. JUDGE: CHARLOTTE WALTER WOOLARD, REPORTER: KENT GUBBINE, CSR #5797 Enclosed with this letter is a form of order denying preliminary injunction that I have prepared, notwithstanding the fact that the Court directed plaintiff's attorney to prepare the Order, for the reasons that follow. On January 12, 2011, I sent to plaintiff's attorney a facsimile letter in which I indicated that I had reluctantly approved as to its form, the “Order On Motion For Preliminary Injunction” that he had prepared, and I transmitted with that letter, the Order he had prepared, which I had signed to indicate my approval of its form. A copy of my letter to plaintiff's attorney together with the Order I had approved is enclosed with this letter.The Honorable Charlotte Walter Woolard January 28, 2011 Page 2 For reasons unknown to me, I understand that plaintiff's attorney has not submitted to the Court the Order that he prepared and that I had approved as to form. Although the date on which my client was authorized to notice the trustee’s sale of plaintiff’s real property has already passed, the lender servicing company responsible for doing so will not record the notice of sale until an Order is entered with respect to plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction. As I cannot compel plaintiff’s attorney to submit to the Court the Order that he prepared, I submit the enclosed, proposed Order so as not to further delay the recording of the notice of sale. The Order that I am submitting for Your Honor’s signature and entry by your clerk is completely consistent with the Court’s orally announced Order, and with the Court’s minute entry of its Order as stated on the docket sheet. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this matter. However, if the form of Order enclosed herewith is acceptable to Your Honor, I request that you sign it and have it entered by the clerk, and I will then pick up an endorsed-filed copy of it. Sincerely yours, LEIN GA: vy (1309.06:31) Enclosures cc: Richard Sinclair, Esq. (w/copy of enclosures) cc: Philip Adelson, Esq. (via facsimile transmission, w/copy of enclosures)