LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka
Department B
Monday, August 10, 2020
Calendar No. 14
PROCEEDINGS
People of the State of California, et al. v. Paul Price, et al.
19TRCV00891
City of Lawndale’s Motion for Appointment of Receiver and Requiring Reimbursements
TENTATIVE RULING
Petitioner City of Lawndale’s Motion for Appointment of Receiver and Requiring Reimbursements is granted.
Petitioner City of Lawndale (“City” or “Petitioner”) requests the appointment of a receiver and requests reimbursement in this action. As an initial matter, respondent has not filed any opposition to Petitioner’s instant motion. The moving party generally bears the initial burden of proof on its motion. Thus, lack of opposition does not automatically entitle plaintiff to prevail on the motion. However, a party’s failure to file opposition can be considered as an admission that the motion is meritorious, and the Court can refuse to hear oral argument from such par
Hearing Date
August 10, 2020
Type
Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka
Department B
Monday, August 10, 2020
Calendar No. 14
PROCEEDINGS
People of the State of California, et al. v. Paul Price, et al.
19TRCV00891
City of Lawndale’s Motion for Appointment of Receiver and Requiring Reimbursements
TENTATIVE RULING
Petitioner City of Lawndale’s Motion for Appointment of Receiver and Requiring Reimbursements is granted.
Petitioner City of Lawndale (“City” or “Petitioner”) requests the appointment of a receiver and requests reimbursement in this action. As an initial matter, respondent has not filed any opposition to Petitioner’s instant motion. The moving party generally bears the initial burden of proof on its motion. Thus, lack of opposition does not automatically entitle plaintiff to prevail on the motion. However, a party’s failure to file opposition can be considered as an admission that the motion is meritorious, and the Court can refuse to hear oral argument from such par