10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: US BANK, NA fr. 9-15-20, 10-6-20
Docket 22
ZoomGov Appearance by:
12/30/20 - Diane Weifenbach, (714) 695-6637
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 6, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Deny motion without prejudice. There is amply equity in the property to provide movant with adequate protection and there is equity in the property from the debtor's perspective.
10:00 AM
Final Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to permit sale to move forward.
Tentative Ruling for January 5, 2021:
Trustee employed real estate broker in late October. What, if any, progress has been made toward a sale of the property? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Christopher Gordon Fields Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Movant(s):
U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By Diane Weifenbach
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: MARK K. JOHNSON
Docket 11
12/8/20 - Amended motion filed.
ZoomGov Appearance by:
12/30/20 - Maria L. Garcia, (213)599-7854
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
2161 Argyle LLC Represented By Julie A Duncan
Movant(s):
Mark K Johnson Represented By Maria L Garcia
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. DBA CHRYSLER CAPITAL
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Jorge Quiroga Jr. Represented By Lauren M Foley
Movant(s):
Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By
Sheryl K Ith
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01177 Acra Machinery, Inc., a California corporation et v. Avakian
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Continue status conference for approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
12/27/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Final Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report not later than February 25, 2020. Parties should lodge an order appointing mediators not later than December 24, 2020 and should complete a day of mediation not later than March 10, 2020. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order. Impose sanctions of $150 each on counsel for parties for failing to file joint status report in a timely manner.
Did the parties complete a day of mediation as previously ordered by the Court? If not, why not?
2:00 PM
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/7/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
7/10/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- July 7, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- September 15, 2020
Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Why didn't the parties complete mediation by the deadline that the court established for this purpose? Hearing required.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to complete mediation to October 5, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
What is the status of this matter? Did the parties in fact participate in a mediation by the deadline established by the court for this purpose? Hearing required.
11/3/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- January 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- December 22, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- December 21, 2020
2:00 PM
12/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to February 21, 2021
Status conference continued to March 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to January 19, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 5, 2021
Debtor(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Defendant(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Plaintiff(s):
Acra Machinery, Inc., a California Represented By
Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
ACRA SEIKI, Inc., a California Represented By Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01195 Dye v. Kim et al
Docket 33
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant motion. Enter judgment for plaintiff quieting title to the property in the bankruptcy estate. The 2014 transfer to the Irrevocable Trust was invalid and transferred nothing in that, as of the time the debtor executed a quit claim deed in favor of the Irrevocable Trust, he was no longer the owner of the property and was outside the chain of title. Title to the property was held by the debtor's living trust at the time of the transfer and remained owned by the living trust as of the petition date. As his living trust can be revoked at any time by the debtor, the property became an asset of his bankruptcy estate at the time of the filing.
(If court grants motion, take status conference currently scheduled for January 19, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. off calendar.)
Debtor(s):
Eunho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Eunho Kim Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Eunho Kim as Trustee of the Eun Ho Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Connie H. Kim Pro Se
Connie H. Kim as trustee of The Eun Pro Se
Kye Sik Moon Represented By Donald E Iwuchuku
Selk Group, Inc., a California Pro Se
DOES 1 - 20, Inclusive Pro Se
Movant(s):
Carolyn A. Dye Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
Plaintiff(s):
Carolyn A. Dye Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
fr. 1-8-20, 4-29-20, 9-2-20
Docket 369
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/6/21 - Diane Weil, (818)651-6400
Ruling from January 8, 2020:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue hearing to April 29, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. to give trustee an opportunity to complete her administration of the estate. If case has not been closed by then, trustee should file updated status report by April 22, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 8, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 29, 2020:
10:00 AM
Docket does not reflect any filings since last hearing. When will trustee be in a position to close this case? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for September 2, 2020:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue hearing to January 6, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give trustee an opportunity to complete her administration of the estate. If case has not been closed by then, trustee should file updated status report by December 30, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
What is the status of this matter? Did the trustee file the updated status report due December 30, 2020? Has the trustee filed her amended final report? Hearing required.
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue status conference to March 16, 2021 at 2:00 11:00 a.m. If case has not been closed by then, trustee should file updated status report not later than March 5, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 6, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Daniel Louis Reece Represented By James A Hayes Jr James R Selth
Joint Debtor(s):
Kimberly Ann Reece Represented By James A Hayes Jr James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Diane C Weil (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 134
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Overrule objection. Court will not adjudicate the merits of the parties' respective positions in the context of a motion for approval of a compromise, and the existence of claims against Om Yermo is not a basis for denial of the motion; however, the motion is incomplete. The motion recites the A&C factors, but does not discuss or apply them to the facts of this case. What claims does the trustee have against Om Yermo and its foreclosure agent?
Are these claims worth anything? Is Om Yermo giving up anything in exchange for the releases? What claims, if any, would Om Yermo have against the estate? Are these claims viable?
Continue hearing to give trustee an opportunity to file supplemental declaration walking the court through his analysis of the application of the A&C factors to the facts of this case.
Debtor(s):
Gardena Business Group LLC Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard L. Sturdevant
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Wesley H Avery
10:00 AM
Docket 153
12/18/20 - Notice of rescheduled hearing filed with correct hearing time for 11am
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By David B Golubchik Todd M Arnold
11:00 AM
fr.10-16-19, 1-15-20, 3-18-20, 3-26-20, 6-3-20
Docket 87
ZoomGov Appearance by:
10/21/19 -- Court approved scheduling order that set following dates:
L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 25, 2019 Bar date -- December 20, 2019
Con'd case status conference -- January 15, 2020 at 11 L/D to file updated status report -- January 3, 2020
Tentative Ruling for January 15, 2020:
Set deadline for debtor to file plan and disclosure statement and administrative bar date for all creditors other than professional persons. Set deadline for debtor to serve notice of bar date.
Tentative Ruling for March 26, 2020:
11:00 AM
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
If court confirms plan, take case status conference off calendar and set new post- confirmation status conference date and deadline for liquidating trustee to file status report.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Court has reviewed trust's post-confirmation status report. Continue post- confirmation status conference to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file updated status report not later than April 9, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 6, 2021.
Debtor(s):
West Coast Distribution, Inc. Represented By Ron Bender Lindsey L Smith
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for December 4, 2019:
Debtor owns 80 percent of the Real Property as a tenant in common with whom? Do the managing member's parents own the other 20 percent as joint tenants? And the debtor itself is 80 percent owned by George Gabriel and 20 percent owned by his father? When was the deed of trust held by Tymeout recorded in the first place? What were the proceeds of the loan used for?
Set bar date and deadline for serving notice of bar date.
12/11/19 -- Court approved order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- 12/13/19
Bar date -- 1/31/20
Cont'd case status conference -- 03/04/20 at 11:00 a.m. L/D to file updated case status report -- 02/21/20.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for March 4, 2020:
Status report was filed late (on February 27, 2020). Discuss with debtor pending litigation in state court concerning the parties' respective priorities. Set deadline for debtor to commence litigation in this court to resolve these issues. Explore whether ordering the parties to mediation would be useful.
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 1, 2020:
What is currently happening at the property? Who is collecting rents? Are tenants paying rent? Did debtor seek and obtain any stays pending appeal? Hearing required.
NOTE: There are a number of inaccurate or misleading statements in the case status report. For example, there is no mention made of the prior in rem order for relief.
Instead, the report makes it appear that the first time Tymeout obtained relief from stay was in the April 28, 2020 order, which was not the case. And the statement that the debtor, "of course" obtained a stay of the foreclosure proceedings by filing this case is inconsistent with the court's prior rulings in this matter.
Tentative Ruling for October 7, 2020:
Discuss with the parties whether to grant the debtor's request that the debtor and Tymeout be ordered to mediation. Hearing required.
10/16/20 -- Court approved order directing parties to complete a day of mediation not later than January 5, 2021 and setting the following additional dates:
Cont'd case status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 L/D to file updated case status report -- December 27, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- October 26, 2020. (If Tymeout fails to cooperate in selection of mediator, debtor may file declaration to this effect and lodge unilateral order appointing mediators of its choosing. If Tymeout fails to participate in mediation, debtor should file declaration to this effect and court will issue an order to show cause why Tymeout should not be held in contempt.)
11:00 AM
11/13/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Court has not approved a settlement agreement, so it is not in a position to issue an order to show cause why someone should, or should not, be held in breach of that agreement. The debtor is a party to the proposed agreement. Does it intend to seek court approval of the agreement? If not, why not? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Grandview Hills LLC Represented By Louis J Esbin
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/4/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
1/4/21 - Phillip Wang, (415)968-2002 1/4/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777
Set deadline for serving notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
10/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 7, 2020
Bar date -- December 7, 2020
L/D to file updated status report -- December 28, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by December 28, 2020? Hearing required.
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has received status report filed December 29, 2020. Other than submitting to a 2004 examination and serving a notice of bar date, what if any steps toward reorganization have been accomplished since the last status conference and what has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to propose a plan? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
fr. 9-30-20, 12-2-20
Docket 115
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/4/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931 1/4/21 - Romy Shy
1/4/21 - Barry Shy
1/6/21 - Todd Arnold, (310)229-1234
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
If debtor files nonfrivolous motion to sell property by September 25, 2020, continue hearing to date of hearing on motion for authority to sell property (Debtor noticed it for December 2, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., but why does the hearing need to be two months away?) (Motion to conduct auction with release price at or near debtor's appraised value for the property will not
11:00 AM
suffice.) If debtor fails to file nonfrivolous motion for authority to sell by deadline established by the court for this purpose, convert case to chapter 7.
Debtor filed a sale motion on September 25, 2020 that is confusing to say the least. On the one hand, it says that the sale will NOT be free and clear of the Excepted Items, which include the secured claims of SPS, BOBS and JWR. Later in the motion, it appears that the intention of the debtor is to pay at least the undisputed portion (or the entirety) of SPS's claim out of escrow and to have the secured claim of BOBS (whatever that might be) attach to the proceeds of sale. This doesn't make sense.
Either the liens should be paid in full out of escrow (in which event there is no need to sell "free and clear" of the liens) or the sale should be free and clear of the liens with the liens to attach to the proceeds of sale with the same validity, priority, etc. (Or the undisputed portion could be paid out of escrow with the remainder of the liens to attach to the sale proceeds, but, in that event, the sale should still be free and clear of the liens.) Otherwise, the sale would be "subject to" the liens and the buyer is not going to pay more than
$23,000,000 to be subject to either the lien of SPS or BOBS both of which are in default. The property would immediately be lost to foreclosure if the buyer did not pay these liens off or enter into new arrangements with the lenders.
What is the debtor trying to say?
Final Ruling for September 30, 2020:
Debtor is selling subject to the excepted liens and free and clear of the nonexcepted liens, with the liens to attach to the net proceeds of sale. Debtor intends to pay the undisputed portions. There is a 60-day due diligence period.
Continue hearing to December 2, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with date of hearing on proposed sale.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
In light of motion to withdraw, it would be inappropriate for the court to leave debtor in place as a debtor in possession. Debtor cannot be relied upon to
11:00 AM
act as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. Discuss with parties whether appointment of a chapter 11 trustee or conversion of case would be a better alternative.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By David B Golubchik Todd M Arnold
11:00 AM
fr. 8-4-20, 9-30-20, 12-2-20
Docket 81
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/4/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931 1/4/21 - Rommy Shy
1/4/21 - Barry Shy
1/6/21 - Todd Arnold, (310)229-1234
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
The Court has been closely monitoring the debtor's progress with regard to a sale of the property in this case and will continue to do so. This case was filed on February 12, 2020 and, within approximately a month, reality changed dramatically. Debtor may be excused for the fact that vigorous marketing efforts did not begin and yield fruit immediately; however, the Court's patience and understanding is limited. At some point in the very near future, the Court
11:00 AM
will begin to share the movant's frustration with the pace at which the debtor has marketed this property and will reach the conclusion that the debtor is indeed trying simply to retain his luxury lifestyle at no cost for as long as possible.
At this point, the Court is not yet ready to conclude that the case was filed in bad faith, but the proof will be "in the pudding." Continue hearing 60 to 90 days to see whether the debtor complies with the deadline that the court has established for the filing of a motion to sell the property.
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to September 30, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. No new briefing required or permitted.
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
If debtor files nonfrivolous motion to sell property by September 25, 2020, continue hearing to date of hearing on motion for authority to sell property. (Motion to conduct auction with release price at or near debtor's appraised value for the property will not suffice.) If debtor fails to file nonfrivolous motion for authority to sell by deadline established by the court for this purpose, revisit motion after conclusion of hearing on court's order to show cause.
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
Revisit motion after conclusion of hearing on sale motion.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Deny motion. If trustee concludes that a sale of the property cannot be consummated in a manner that would produce a benefit for the estate, trustee can abandon property or court can grant relief from stay. Dismissal of case is unnecessary and would not be in the best interest of any party other than movant.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By David B Golubchik Todd M Arnold
Movant(s):
BOBS LLC Represented By
David Jacob
11:00 AM
MOVANT: BOBS, LLC.
fr. 8-4-20, 9-30-20, 12-2-20
Docket 80
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/4/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931 1/4/21 - Rommy Shy
1/4/21 - Barry Shy
1/6/21 - Todd Arnold, (310)229-1234
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Grant motion to disqualify Rommy Shy as an expert witness. He may be qualified to perform an appraisal of the property, but he has not demonstrated that with the information contained in his declaration. With regard to the
11:00 AM
second argument advanced in the motion to strike -- that he should be disqualified because of his economic stake in the outcome -- the court recognizes that there is a difference between hiring a supposedly independent expert and then compensating that expert on a contingency basis and letting a party in interest who has the requisite expertise offer expert testimony. Court would not necessarily exclude testimony in the latter instance, but the existence of incentive and bias would certainly cause the court to take the incentives of the declarant into consideration in weighing the validity/accuracy of the testimony.
In light of the foregoing, the only admissible evidence currently in the record as to the value of the property is that supplied by the debtor -- an appraisal showing the value of the property at $26 million. There is no evidence that the property is declining in value, so, at present, the movant has not established that it is entitled to relief from stay under either section 362(d)(1) for lack of adequate protection or under section 362(d)(2).
However, as the court has previously explained, particularly in light of the limited resources that the debtor has to maintain the property pending the consummation of a sale, the property needs to be sold promptly. And the court will have an opportunity in connection with the sale process to determine whether the debtor's valuation is accurate. Toward this end, the Court entered a scheduling order on June 23, 2020, directing the debtor to file a motion to approve a sale of the property not later than September 25, 2020. (An order approving real estate brokers was entered on July 28, 2020.)
Based on this record, if the Court were to rule on the motion now, it would deny the motion without prejudice, but, if movant would prefer, court will continue hearing for approximately 60 to 90 days to see whether the debtor moves forward promptly with a sale of the property or whether relief from stay should be granted to prevent the debtor from further delaying this process. (See tentative ruling for matter number 7 for court's tentative ruling with regard to contention that relief from stay should be granted because case was filed in bad faith.)
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
11:00 AM
Continue hearing to September 30, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. No new briefing required or permitted.
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
If debtor files nonfrivolous motion to sell property by September 25, 2020, continue hearing to date of hearing on motion for authority to sell property. (Motion to conduct auction with release price at or near debtor's appraised value for the property will not suffice.) If debtor fails to file nonfrivolous motion for authority to sell by deadline established by the court for this purpose, grant motion.
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
If court grants sale motion, deny motion for relief from stay.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to give trustee appointed an opportunity to ascertain whether the sale should be consummated or whether relief from stay should be granted.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By David B Golubchik Todd M Arnold
Movant(s):
BOBS LLC Represented By
David Jacob
11:00 AM
Docket 153
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/4/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931 1/4/21 - Rommy Shy
1/4/21 - Barry Shy
1/6/21 - Todd Arnold, (310)229-1234
Grant.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By David B Golubchik Todd M Arnold
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/4/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931 1/4/21 - Rommy Shy
1/4/21 - Barry Shy
1/6/21 - Todd Arnold, (310)229-1234
Continue case status conference to April 2, 2020 at 10:00 to be heard concurrently with final hearing on interim financing. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 1, 2020. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
4/3/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: L/D for debtor to serve notice of bar date -- April 10, 2020
Bar date -- June 8, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- June 17, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.
11:00 AM
L/D to file updated status report -- June 12, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 17, 2020:
Debtor's game plan is to sell real property and then do structured dismissal. Debtor does not believe it necessary to set a deadlne for filing a plan. Therefore, set a deadline for debtor to file sale motion instead.
6/23/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: L/D for debtor to file motion to approve sale of debtor's real property --
September 25, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- September 30, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. L/D to file updated status report -- September 18, 2020
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearings on related motions.
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
Discuss with debtor plans for future of this case if/when sale of property closes. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue case status conference to date of continued hearing on Bobs' motion for relief from stay.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By David B Golubchik Todd M Arnold
11:00 AM
to Enforce Order Appproving Sale of Real Property;
for an Order Finding that the Debtor is in Contempt for Noncompliance with a Court Order
Docket 179
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/4/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931 1/4/21 - Rommy Shy
1/4/21 - Barry Shy
1/6/21 - Todd Arnold, (310)229-1234
Grant motion insofar as it seeks an order compelling debtor to perform his obligations under the purchase agreement; however, there is little point in ordering this debtor to do what he was already obligated to do. As this debtor cannot be trusted to fulfill his obligations as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors, as evidenced by his failure to perform under the sale agreement, court will either convert case to chapter 7 or appoint chapter 11 trustee who
11:00 AM
can execute the required documents. (Discuss with parties whether it would make more sense to direct the clerk to sign documents on debtor's behalf in the interim pursuant to FRCP 70.) Order should also require debtor to vacate the premises immediately.
There is no showing in the motion of any damage due to the delay, and the court is not inclined to punish other creditors who played no role in debtor's misconduct by saddling this estate with an administrative claim to punish the debtor. With regard to movant's request for attorneys' fees for bringing the motion, it would be inappropriate for the court to create a right to attorneys' fees that would not otherwise exist under the parties' contract.
Court assumes that assignment/amendment of the sale agreement did not alter the terms of the original agreement insofar as they relate to the ability of a party to recover attorneys' fees from the other. Paragraph 25 of the agreement does give the prevailing party in a proceeding to enforce the contract the right to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, but that paragraph is subject to the provisions of paragraph 22(A), which provides that a party who commences a legal action without first attempting to resolve a dispute through mediation forfeits its right to recover attorneys' fees under paragrah 25.
Therefore, as a matter of contract, movant is not entitled to recover its attorneys' fees for bringing this motion, as it did not first attempt to resolve the matter through mediation.
Court will not hold the debtor in contempt of the sale order, as there is no language in the sale order that directs the debtor to do anything. It approves and authorizes the sale. The debtor did not disobey the order; he has merely demonstrated that he is unwilling to perform the functions of a debtor in possession in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of creditors and the estate. Therefore, he must be replaced with someone who will perform these duties and functions.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By David B Golubchik Todd M Arnold
2:00 PM
Docket 121
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Judith Anne Sanchez Represented By George J Paukert
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By Carolyn A Dye
2:00 PM
Docket 38
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Raymond D. Rivera Represented By Steven B Lever
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 42
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Michael R Hall Represented By Stephen S Smyth
Joint Debtor(s):
La Vada Rhodes-Hall Represented By Stephen S Smyth
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 168
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant application. Allow on a final basis fees of $64,243 and costs of $1,911.60. Ratify application of retainer and authorize payment of remaining balance due on terms set forth in application. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Daniel E. Rogosin Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Roksana D. Moradi-Brovia
Joint Debtor(s):
Elizabeth Rogosin Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
2:00 PM
Roksana D. Moradi-Brovia
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
VIN# 5TFRY5F19FX179118
MOVANT: SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION
Docket 8
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Fawn Lee Bishop Represented By Neil R Hedtke
Movant(s):
San Diego County Credit Union Represented By Lisa S Yun
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:18-01442 Martinez v. Peters et al
fr. 2-26-19, 5-14-19, 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 4-7-20, 7-14-20, 10-20-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Continue status conference approximately 90 to 120 days. Discuss with parties the timing for sending the matter to mediation.
5/20/19 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates: Discovery cutoff -- October 31, 2019
Cont'd status conference -- August 27, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- August 13, 2019
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
2:00 PM
Continue status conference approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
9/11/19 -- Court approved stipulation for voluntary mediation before Judicate West.
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue discovery cutoff to April 17, 2020 and continue status conference to late March or early April.
12/4/19 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to complete fact discovery -- April 17, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- April 7, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- March 24, 2020
3/30/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to complete fact discovery -- July 10, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- July 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- June 30, 2020
OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2020. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2020:
At parties' request, continue status conference to October 16, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Set discovery cutoff for October 9, 2020. Parties should file an updated joint status report not later than October 2, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 14, 2020.
PLAINTIFF SHOULD LODGE A SCHEDULING ORDER WITH THESE DATES.
7/15/20 -- Court signed scheduling order (with slightly different dates than above): Cont'd status conference -- October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to conduct fact discovery -- October 9, 2020 L/D to file joint status report -- October 6, 2020
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
Discovery cutoff for fact discovery was October 9. Are parties requesting extension of this deadline? Set deadlines for exchange of expert witness reports and completion of expert witness discovery. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions and joint pretrial order. Set pretrial conference date.
10/21/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- January 12, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
Discovery cutoff for fact discovery extended to December 23, 2020; L/D to file joint status report -- December 29, 2020.
12/28/20 -- Court approved stipulation re dismissal. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Kevin E. Peters Represented By
M. Jonathan Hayes
Defendant(s):
Kevin Edmond Peters Represented By
M. Jonathan Hayes
Cinthia Veronica Gambino Peters Represented By
M. Jonathan Hayes
Joint Debtor(s):
Cinthia Veronica Gambino Peters Represented By
M. Jonathan Hayes
Plaintiff(s):
Sharon Martinez Represented By
John-Patrick M Fritz
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01103 Nolan v. Spencer
fr. 6-30-20, 10-6-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/1/20 -- Court signed order setting discovery cutoff of September 30, 2020. Tentative Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Where is joint status report that should have been filed by September 22, 2020? Have parties completed their discovery? Does either party anticipate filing any pretrial motions? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Continue status conference to January 12, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than December 29, 2020.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021:
Sanction counsel for each party $150 for (again) failing to file joint status report in a timely manner. What is the status of this action? Have the parties now completed discovery? If not, are they requesting an extension of the discovery cutoff? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation? If not, why not.
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Defendant(s):
William K Spencer Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Gwendolyn Nolan Represented By
Lane M Nussbaum
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01271 Elizabeth K.. Beaver Recovable Trust v. Nevarez
Docket 56
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021:
Judge Bluebond was not served with a copy of the motion (which is 665 pages). Movant should have copy of papers delivered to Judge Bluebond. Continue hearing to January 26, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to give court an opportunity to review and work up motion.
Appearances waived on January 12, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Walter Steven Nevarez Represented By Richard A Avetisyan
Defendant(s):
Walter Steven Nevarez Pro Se
2:00 PM
Movant(s):
Elizabeth K.. Beaver Recovable Represented By
Anton R E Richardson
Plaintiff(s):
Elizabeth K.. Beaver Recovable Represented By
Anton R E Richardson
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01271 Elizabeth K.. Beaver Recovable Trust v. Nevarez
fr. 10-15-19, 1-28-20, 5-5-20, 8-4-20, 10-6-20, 11-17-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for October 15, 2019:
(Unilateral status reports are to be accompanied by a declaration.)
Explain to defendant the consequences of failing to participate in preparation of joint status report and failure to comply with local rules. Does defendant intend to employ counsel to represent him in this matter or will he be representing himself? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for October 15, 2019:
2:00 PM
Continue status conference to January 28, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report not later than January 14, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for January 28, 2020:
Once again, plaintiff has filed a unilateral status report without an accompanying declaration. Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to supply this declaration. Issue order to show cause why defendant's answer should not be stricken and plaintiff permitted to proceed by way of default based on defendant's failure to participate in preparation of joint status report.
2/5/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- May 5, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- April 21, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- February 28, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- May 5, 2020
3/3/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2020:
Plaintiff's counsel seems to be confused about the meaning of question 5 on the status report form. The term "Claims Documents" is defined in question A(1) of the form and refers to the complaint and counterclaim and not to any proof of claim filed in the case.
Court cannot read defendant's response to question E(1) on the status report. The handwriting is too small and the quality of the photocopy is poor. What is defendant trying to say?
Court ordered parties to participate in a mediation. Court understands that the parties are not able to attend a mediation in person, but have they discussed with the mediator the prospect of conducting a virtual mediation via Zoom or some other video platform? (The mediator filed a certificate of completion, stating that a mediation did
2:00 PM
take place during the week of March 23, 2020. Plaintiff reports that the mediator spoke to each of the parties separately on the phone, but that no mediation took place.)
Plaintiff represents that it plans to bring a motion for summary judgment. Is the plaintiff in a position to do that now, or does plaintiff need to conduct some discovery first?
Hearing required.
5/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Plaintiff is to provide defendant with copies of documents on which claims are based. Parties shall file joint status report not later than July 21, 2020.
Parties shall complete a day of mediation by person or by video by August 4, 2020. Status conference continued to August 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Court is reluctant to impose sanctions on defendant for not participating in this adversary proceeding after he filed chapter 13 bankruptcy on June 30, 2020, as an automatic stay arose upon the filing of the new bankruptcy case. Plaintiff should obtain relief from stay in chapter 13 bankruptcy case to proceed with this adversary proceeding. (The outcome of this proceeding is still relevant in that debtor will not obtain a discharge in his chapter 13 case, having received one in this chapter 7 case.) Once plaintiff has obtained relief from stay, court will renew order directing defendant to participate in mediation and will impose sanctions if debtor fails to do so.
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue status conference to October 6, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by September 22, 2020. Court will extend deadline to complete mediation to October 6, 2020. Plantiff should move for relief from stay to authorize the continuation of this litigation. Scheduling order should say that, once relief from stay has been granted, mediation should be completed by extended date, and court will enforce its order that mediation be completed by this date once relief from stay has been granted. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Relief from stay was granted in debtor's chapter 13 case on September 18, 2020 and order included waiver of 14-day stay. Impose sanctions of $150 on debtor for failing to participate in preparation of joint status report. Did mediation proceed on October 1, 2020 as scheduled? Hearing required. If defendant failed to appear at mediation, impose additional sanctions of $250 and issue order to show cause why his answer to complaint should not be stricken and plaintiff entitled to proceed by way of default. Set hearing on OSC for same date as a continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for November 17, 2020:
If court concludes that defendant's answer to complaint should be stricken based on his failure to cooperate in the adjudication of this action, set deadline for plaintiff to bring motion for default judgment and continue status conference to date of hearing on motion for default judgment. Deny request for further monetary sanctions.
12/1/20 -- Court entered an order striking defendant's answer to complaint and authorizing plaintiff to proceed by way of default.
12/1/20 -- Court entered scheduling order setting following dates:
L/D for plaintiff to file motion for default judgment -- December 22, 2020
Hearing on motion for default judgment and status conference -- January 12, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. (No joint status report is required.)
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021:
Continue status conference to January 26, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion for default judgment.
Debtor(s):
Walter Steven Nevarez Represented By Richard A Avetisyan
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Walter Steven Nevarez Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Elizabeth K.. Beaver Recovable Represented By
Anton R E Richardson
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:12-01538 8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad
U.S.C. Sections 523(a)(2)(A) & (B) and 523(a)(6) Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))
fr. 11-18-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
12/22/20 -- Court approved stipulation confirming that nothing precludes claimants from liquidating the amount of their claim in state court.
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021:
Court has reviewed the parties' respective briefs. Court rejects claimants' argument that damages arising from the debtor's abandonment of the lease, as represented by the state court judgment, are not capped by 502(b)(6).
They are lease termination damages within the meaning of that section and applicable case law. Kupfer does not stand for the proposition that, if the
2:00 PM
landlord elects to treat a lease as abandoned rather than terminated, it can avoid the cap. Moreover, this argument was never advanced before Judge Neiter and was waived. Judge Neiter calculated the maximum amount of damage for lease termination damages under section 502(b)(6) and this amount will not increase because the state court judgment came out higher. There is nothing to litigate on these issues. Judge Neiter's order capping the damages at $1,066,000 remains the law of the case.
Judge Neiter did not enter an order that was intended to be final on the issue of the extent to which the legal fees should be included within the cap (i.e., the 90/10 split). Give parties an opportunity to conduct discovery before court conducts an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
State court's decision to make an award of fees and costs jointly and severally in favor of Melrose and Simantob does not make the cap of section 502(b)(6) inapplicable. With regard to both claimants, court will need to determine extent to which fees relate to litigation over lease termination damages (and are therefore within cap) and extent to which fees relate to other disputes (and are therefore not capped).
With regard to interest accruals, court agrees with debtor that interest cannot accrue from and after November 21, 2013 on unpaid attorneys fees and costs that were incurred after November 21, 2013. Interest accrues at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the later of November 21, 2013 and the date the relevant fees were awarded (or if there was no award, the date they were due).
The fraud claim that Melrose seeks to assert is that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease. Its damage claims therefore remain subject to the 502(b)(6) cap. If Melrose can demonstrate that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease (if this claim is not barred by any applicable statute of limitations), the capped claim would become nondischargeable, but the amount of the claim would remain capped to the same extent as its breach of lease claim. The additional tort theory of recovery does not change the amount of the damage. If the capped claim has already been or will be paid in full, there is no need to determine whether or not the claim should be excepted from the discharge. The court recently approved a stipulation
2:00 PM
between the parties. Is it their intention to resolve the extent to which a fraud claim is or is not barred by the statute of limitations in state court? Similarly, is it the parties' intention to litigate the malicious prosecution claims in state court?
In light of the foregoing, the only open issues for this court to resolve appear to be the split between capped and noncapped attorneys' fees (whether the 90/10 split is appropriate) and the interest calculations on fees and charges incurred after November 21, 2013. Set deadline for the completion of discovery and a further status conference on these issues.
Debtor(s):
Ramesh Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz
Defendant(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By
John-patrick M Fritz David L. Neale
Joint Debtor(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz
Plaintiff(s):
8451 Melrose Property, LLC Represented By Jeffrey I Golden Beth Gaschen Kyra E Andrassy
Michael A. Taitelman Lewis R Landau
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Thomas C Hebrank (TR) Represented By
J. Barrett Marum Robert K Sahyan Aaron J Malo
2:00 PM
fr. 11-18-20
Docket 521
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 18, 2020:
Conduct hearing as a status conference and discuss with the parties the open issues and the best approach for resolving them. (And does anyone have a copy of Judge Neiter's tentative ruling for matter no. 5 on his September 10, 2013 calendar? The October 15, 2013 order (docket no. 409) states that it is attached as an exhibit to the order, but it wasn't.)
Final Ruling from November 18, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 12, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. as a holding date. Plaintiff 8451 Melrose shall file and serve not later than December 8, 2020 a motion on the docket of the adversary proceeding identifying the claims that it believes it may pursue that are not barred or capped. Responses must be
2:00 PM
filed and served by December 29, 2020. Any replies must be filed and served by January 5, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021:
As court directed that briefing occur in the context of the adversary proceeding, see tentative ruling for matter no. 204. Revisit status of this motion after conclusion of hearings on related matters on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Ramesh Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz
Joint Debtor(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz
Movant(s):
Thomas C. Hebrank, Disbursing Represented By
J. Barrett Marum
Trustee(s):
Thomas C Hebrank (TR) Represented By
J. Barrett Marum Robert K Sahyan Aaron J Malo
2:00 PM
fr. 11-18-20
Docket 519
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Court has already entered an order granting motion. OFF CALENDAR.
Debtor(s):
Ramesh Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz
Joint Debtor(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz
Movant(s):
Jack Simantob, 8451 Melrose Represented By
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Dean G Rallis Jr Kyra E Andrassy Lewis R Landau
Thomas C Hebrank (TR) Represented By
J. Barrett Marum Robert K Sahyan Aaron J Malo
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:15-01535 Murtagh v. BAKER et al
Docket 742
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/6/21 - Jessica Ponce, (619)302-3032 1/6/21 - Peter Arhangelsky, (602)334-4416
Court is not concerned about any hardship or delay continued discovery may impose on Baker in that he is responsible for the problems that have arisen during the course of discovery in this matter. And the court does not share Baker's view that it should vacate Baker's default if it were to reopen discovery.
However, plaintiff has known that third parties might have relevant documents or information in their possession for months if not years. If plaintiff wanted to request the production of documents directly from Steele, Leppo, Dunn or others, why didn't he begin that discovery months ago? And how would any information that plaintiff hopes to obtain from these third parties affect what
2:00 PM
the court's judgment would be in this case? Any injunction issued by this court can enjoin any parties acting in concert with Baker from engaging in the prohibited activity. Is plaintiff attempting to obtain information with which to add other defendants to this action? Court needs more information about what plaintiff hopes to obtain through additional discovery and how that would be relevant to the outcome of this adversary proceeding.
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
CLARK WARREN BAKER Represented By
Alan F Broidy - DISBARRED - Baruch C Cohen
Defendant(s):
CLARK WARREN BAKER Represented By Jessica Ponce
Plaintiff(s):
James Murtagh Represented By David P Bleistein Lisa Hiraide Douglas M Neistat Michael J Conway Derek Linke Derek A Newman
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Represented By Carolyn A Dye
11:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
11:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
11:00 AM
Final payment was due 11/30/20 for $105.00
Docket 20
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Vacate OSC. Debtor has now paid remaining installments. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED. COURT WILL PREPARE ORDER.
Debtor(s):
Cynthia Ross Pro Se
Trustee(s):
11:00 AM
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
$100 was due on 12/2/20
$100 due before 1/4/21
$100 due before 2/2/21
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Debtor has now paid first three installments. Final installment is due February 2, 2021. Continue hearing to February 10, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give debtor an opportunity to pay the final installment. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 13, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Jeremias O Hernandez Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
11:00 AM
$100 was due on 11/30/20
$100 due before 12/30/20
$100 due before 1/29/21
Docket 13
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Vacate OSC as moot. Case has already been dismissed on other grounds. No appearance required. Court will prepare order.
Debtor(s):
Aaron Anthony Munoz Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
#103.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Mark Slotkin and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of
$29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20
Docket 130
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling from November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Slotkin to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing debtor to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is
11:00 AM
referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#104.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by 8777 Appian Way, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20
Docket 133
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Appian Way to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is
11:00 AM
referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#105.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Antiquarian Traders, Inc. and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20
Docket 136
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Antiquarian Traders to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is
11:00 AM
referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#106.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Breakfront, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of
$29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20
Docket 139
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Breakfront to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is
11:00 AM
referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#107.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Clover Industrial Properties, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20
Docket 142
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Clover to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is
11:00 AM
referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#108.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Golden Oak Partners, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20
Docket 145
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Golden Oak to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is
11:00 AM
referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#109.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Olympic Holdings, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20
Docket 148
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Olympic to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is
11:00 AM
referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 13
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required. (21.54% interest rate)
Debtor(s):
Fanny Florisel Santizo Cifuentes Represented By
Marlin Branstetter
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Araceli Rodriguez Represented By Omar Zambrano
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 8
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Coversheet is blank. Part D is blank. What is the interest rate? How much are the payments? Deny approval as agreement is incomplete. Court does not have the information that it requires to approve agreement.
Debtor(s):
Jennifer D Thomas Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 15
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor co-signor? Part D says, "Car owner make the payment from her bank account."
Debtor(s):
Dagoberto Valladares Alonso Pro Se
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 17
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Missing information on coversheet. Only $50 left per month to make required payments?
Debtor(s):
Angela Maria Morales Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Juan F. Chen Represented By
Nathan A Berneman
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Francisco Jimenez Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 8
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Sheila Medina Represented By Omar Zambrano
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 14
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Part D says "The car payment is made by the owner, only 3 months to complete the balance." Is the debtor merely a co-signor?
Debtor(s):
Gloria Esperanza Ruiz Pro Se
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 13
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Daniel Vera Represented By
Laleh Ensafi
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
(Interest rate 22.59 percent) Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Robert Renderos Represented By Peter M Lively
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Ines Diego Platon Represented By Laleh Ensafi
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Julien Calvario Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 11
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Justina Tarango Represented By Frank J Alvarado
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Michelle Satorhelyi Represented By Raymond J Bulaon
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: CROWN CITY CAPITAL, INC.
Docket 15
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) or extraordinary relief. (Court only grants in rem relief pursuant to section 362(d)(4), which wasn't requested in the motion and is not applicable.)
Debtor(s):
2161 Argyle LLC Represented By Julie A Duncan
Movant(s):
Crown City Capital, Inc. Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/12/21 - Vincent Frounjian, (818)859-7511
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Marvin Alfredo Bonilla Espinoza Represented By
Steven A. Alexander
Joint Debtor(s):
Solieth Margarit Contreras Sermeno Represented By
Steven A. Alexander
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Honda Lease Trust Represented By Vincent V Frounjian
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
fr. 1-6-21
Docket 134
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/19/21 - Allen Ostergar, (949)305-4590
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Overrule objection. Court will not adjudicate the merits of the parties' respective positions in the context of a motion for approval of a compromise, and the existence of claims against Om Yermo is not a basis for denial of the motion; however, the motion is incomplete. The motion recites the A&C factors, but does not discuss or apply them to the facts of this case. What claims does the trustee have against Om Yermo and its foreclosure agent?
Are these claims worth anything? Is Om Yermo giving up anything in exchange for the releases? What claims, if any, would Om Yermo have against the estate? Are these claims viable?
Continue hearing to give trustee an opportunity to file supplemental
10:00 AM
declaration walking the court through his analysis of the application of the A&C factors to the facts of this case.
Final Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to January 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Trustee will serve and file supplemental declaration not later than January 13, 2021. Supplemental oppositions must be filed and served by noon on January 18, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 19, 2021:
Court has reviewed trustee's supplemental declarations and is satisfied that the trustee has addressed the questions/concerns raised by the court. Grant motion. Approve compromise.
Debtor(s):
Gardena Business Group LLC Represented By
Richard L. Sturdevant
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Wesley H Avery
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01221 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. ILWU-PMA v. Gomez
Gomez
fr. 9-17-19, 11-5-19, 2-11-20, 4-7-20, 7-14-20, 10-20-20
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling for September 17, 2019:
Plaintiff obtained and served alias summons. Response to complaint is not due until September 26, 2019. Continue status conference to November 5, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for November 5, 2019:
A status report is not required when the defendant has not responded to the complaint, and, in any event, counsel should not use Judge Zurzolo's form of status report for this judge. Counsel should also be aware that it is inappropriate for an attorney to file a declaration attesting to his personal knowledge of facts that are not within his personal knowledge. Counnsel should have prepared this declaration for his paralegal's signature.
Set deadline for plaintiff to file request for entry of default and motion for entry of default judgment. Continue status conference to coincide with hearing on default judgment motion.
11/6/19 -- Court entered scheduling order setting status conference for February 11, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and setting deadline of January 21, 2020 for defendant to file motion to set aside default.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for February 11, 2020:
Continue status conference for approximately 90 days. If defendant fails to file response to complaint within time limit set forth in response to motion on calendar as number 207, plaintiffs should take defendant's default, serve and file a motion for default judgment and set it for hearing at same date and time as continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to July 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than June 30, 2020.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 7, 2020.
Tentative Ruling on July 14, 2020:
This action has been pending for a year, and yet the parties have not yet met and conferred in compliance with LBR 7026-1? Court appreciates that parties may wish to avoid costs associated with discovery, but it is time for this matter to either be resolved or to move forward. Set continued status conference. Require parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference. (There are mediators willing to conduct mediations via Zoom.)
Final Ruling from July 14, 2020:
Defendant did not appear at status conference. Court continued status conference to October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and directed parties to file joint status report by October 6, 2020. Plaintiff should file and serve a notice of the continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
Is there any difference between the joint status report filed on October 6, 2020 and that filed on October 7, 2020?
Continue status conference to date that can serve as hearing date on motions that plaintiff intends to file.
2:00 PM
12/9/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 9, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 19, 2021.
Debtor(s):
David Gomez Represented By
Raj T Wadhwani
Defendant(s):
David Gomez Represented By Warren M Stanton
Plaintiff(s):
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Represented By Michael R Pinkston Maisie C Sokolove Christine S Hwang S Bradley Perkins Thomas E Fraysse Elizabeth Medrano Peter W Saltzman Justin T Curley
D Ward Kallstrom
ILWU-PMA WELFARE PLAN Represented By Michael R Pinkston Maisie C Sokolove Christine S Hwang S Bradley Perkins Thomas E Fraysse Elizabeth Medrano Peter W Saltzman Justin T Curley
D Ward Kallstrom
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01195 Dye v. Kim et al
fr. 10-27-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
10/28/20 -- Court entered order denying motion to dismiss, setting deadline of November 30, 2020 for filing of answers to complaint and setting status conference for January 19, 2021. (Parties are to file joint status report not later than January 5, 2021.)
1/5/21 -- Court orally granted motion for default judgment against defendant Connie Kim. Action remains unresolved as against other defendants.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for January 19, 2021:
Set discovery cutoff for late April, 2021. When will plaintiff be in a position to bring her motion for summary judgment? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Eunho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang
Defendant(s):
Eunho Kim Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Eunho Kim as Trustee of the Eun Ho Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Connie H. Kim Pro Se
Connie H. Kim as trustee of The Eun Pro Se
Kye Sik Moon Represented By Donald E Iwuchuku
Selk Group, Inc., a California Pro Se
DOES 1 - 20, Inclusive Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Carolyn A. Dye Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang
2:00 PM
fr. 8-12-20, 11-10-20
Docket 38
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for August 12, 2020:
This bankruptcy was filed on January 12, 2020. Pursuant to section 522(b)(3) (A), the debtors need to have had their domicile in California for two years prior to the filing in order to be able to assert a California homestead exemption in the property. If the debtors have changed their domicile during this two-year period, the debtors need to have resided in California for 180 days immediately prior to this two-year period or at least for the better part of this 180-day period.
Movant contends that (and the debtors agree that) the debtors moved from Hawaii to California on July 24, 2018, which means that they were not living in California for the two years prior to filing this bankruptcy, but the debtors contend that their domicile was always California. According to the debtor, he
2:00 PM
grew up in this house in Monterey Park, and, upon getting married, lived there with his mother. In 2008, they claim to have only left temporarily (for a period of 10 years) in an attempt to start a business in Hawaii. Nevertheless, debtors contend they never ceased to view California as their domicile: they returned to the property in Monterey Park several times a year and never rented the property to anyone else; they always maintained possessions at the house, always paid for the utilities and always had the utilities in their name; they filed California state tax returns; and they continued to receive mail at the property. On these facts, the court cannot summarily adjudicate that the debtors were not domiciled within California during the relevant period. Court will need to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve this issue.
The movant also claims that, under California law, a debtor cannot claim a homestead exemption in property that was fraudulently transferred to him and that the claim of the creditor will defeat that of the transferee. However, the debtor already owned a one-third interest in the property even before the transfer and that interest may be worth enough all by itself to satisfy a
$75,000 homestead exemption. (Actually, he had a one-third interest in the trust and the trust owned the property until it was transferred to the debtor.) The Court cannot summarily adjudicate that either the transfer of his brother's interest in the trust to him or the transfer of the property from the trust to the debtor was a fraudulent transfer. The court would need an evidentiary hearing for this as well. (And the court agrees with movant that this court may make such a determination for the purpose of adjudicating the validity of the debtor's homestead exemption; it does not need to wait for the state court to do so.)
Do the parties need an opportunity to conduct discovery? (Discuss relevant factors with parties.) Hearing required.
8/14/20 -- Court entered scheduling order deeming matter to be adversary proceeding for procedural purposes and set discovery cutoff for November 13, 2020. Status conference scheduled for November 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties shall file joint status report not later than October 27, 2020.
9/15/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing discovery cutoff to January
2:00 PM
22, 2021 and continuing status conference to January 19, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties shall file joint status report not later than January 5, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR NOVEMBER 10, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for January 19, 2021:
Trustee filed a copy of the closing statement, showing net sales proceeds of
$117,096.68. How does this affect the outcome of this contested matter? Where is the joint status report that should have been filed by January 5, 2021? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Jonas Chang Represented By
Chris T Nguyen
Joint Debtor(s):
Christy Chang Represented By Chris T Nguyen
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Alan I Nahmias
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: TOYOTA LEASE TRUST
Docket 27
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
Byron Jimenez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.
Movant(s):
Toyota Lease Trust, as serviced by Represented By
Austin P Nagel
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/25/21 - Austin P. Nagel, (925) 660-9895
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Jeanett Chavez Represented By Rex Tran
Movant(s):
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT Represented By Kirsten Martinez
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
Docket 8
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/25/21 - Austin P. Nagel, (925) 660-9895
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Manuel Salgado Represented By Kian Mottahedeh
Movant(s):
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT Represented By Austin P Nagel
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01069 Leslie v. Gutierrez et al
fr. 6-2-20, 9-8-20, 10-6-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Set discovery cutoff for October 30, 2020. Continue status conference to September 8, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file updated joint status report not later than August 25, 2020. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order with these dates.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 2, 2020.
6/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- September 8, 2020 at 2:00 pm
L/D to file joint status report -- August 25, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- October 30, 2020
2:00 PM
8/25/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 6, 2020 at 2:00
p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Set deadline for filing pretrial motions and pretrial conference for approximately 90 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of pretrial conference.
10/9/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with the following dates: L/D to file pretrial motions -- November 30, 2020
L/D to lodge joint pretrial order -- January 12, 2021 Pretrial conference -- January 26, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to complete mediation -- December 31, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- October 23, 2020 10/23/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
1/12/21 -- Court entered order approving settlement pursuant to which defendants will make a lump sum payment and monthly payments through December of 2022.
1/15/21 -- Court approved stipulation re dismissal. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Lydia C Gutierrez Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Alvaro J. Gutierrez Represented By Grace White
Luis E. Gutierrez Represented By Grace White
Crystal Adilene Yanez Represented By Grace White
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Sam S. Leslie Represented By
Toan B Chung
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Represented By Toan B Chung
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01271 Elizabeth K.. Beaver Recovable Trust v. Nevarez
Docket 56
ZoomGov Appearance by: 1/26/21 - Anton Richardson
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021:
Judge Bluebond was not served with a copy of the motion (which is 665 pages). Movant should have copy of papers delivered to Judge Bluebond. Continue hearing to January 26, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to give court an opportunity to review and work up motion.
Appearances waived on January 12, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 26, 2021:
Grant motion. Enter judgment declaring amounts due under state court judgment nondischargeable under bankruptcy code sections 523(a)(2)(A), (a) (4) and (a)(6).
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Walter Steven Nevarez Represented By Richard A Avetisyan
Defendant(s):
Walter Steven Nevarez Pro Se
Movant(s):
Elizabeth K.. Beaver Recovable Represented By
Anton R E Richardson
Plaintiff(s):
Elizabeth K.. Beaver Recovable Represented By
Anton R E Richardson
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01271 Elizabeth K.. Beaver Recovable Trust v. Nevarez
fr. 10-15-19, 1-28-20, 5-5-20, 8-4-20, 10-6-20, 11-17-20, 1-12-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/26/21 - Anton Richardson
Tentative Ruling for October 15, 2019:
(Unilateral status reports are to be accompanied by a declaration.)
Explain to defendant the consequences of failing to participate in preparation of joint status report and failure to comply with local rules. Does defendant intend to employ counsel to represent him in this matter or will he be representing himself? Hearing required.
2:00 PM
Final Ruling for October 15, 2019:
Continue status conference to January 28, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report not later than January 14, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for January 28, 2020:
Once again, plaintiff has filed a unilateral status report without an accompanying declaration. Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to supply this declaration. Issue order to show cause why defendant's answer should not be stricken and plaintiff permitted to proceed by way of default based on defendant's failure to participate in preparation of joint status report.
2/5/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- May 5, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- April 21, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- February 28, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- May 5, 2020
3/3/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2020:
Plaintiff's counsel seems to be confused about the meaning of question 5 on the status report form. The term "Claims Documents" is defined in question A(1) of the form and refers to the complaint and counterclaim and not to any proof of claim filed in the case.
Court cannot read defendant's response to question E(1) on the status report. The handwriting is too small and the quality of the photocopy is poor. What is defendant trying to say?
Court ordered parties to participate in a mediation. Court understands that the parties are not able to attend a mediation in person, but have they discussed with the mediator the prospect of conducting a virtual mediation via Zoom or some other video
2:00 PM
platform? (The mediator filed a certificate of completion, stating that a mediation did take place during the week of March 23, 2020. Plaintiff reports that the mediator spoke to each of the parties separately on the phone, but that no mediation took place.)
Plaintiff represents that it plans to bring a motion for summary judgment. Is the plaintiff in a position to do that now, or does plaintiff need to conduct some discovery first?
Hearing required.
5/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Plaintiff is to provide defendant with copies of documents on which claims are based. Parties shall file joint status report not later than July 21, 2020.
Parties shall complete a day of mediation by person or by video by August 4, 2020. Status conference continued to August 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Court is reluctant to impose sanctions on defendant for not participating in this adversary proceeding after he filed chapter 13 bankruptcy on June 30, 2020, as an automatic stay arose upon the filing of the new bankruptcy case. Plaintiff should obtain relief from stay in chapter 13 bankruptcy case to proceed with this adversary proceeding. (The outcome of this proceeding is still relevant in that debtor will not obtain a discharge in his chapter 13 case, having received one in this chapter 7 case.) Once plaintiff has obtained relief from stay, court will renew order directing defendant to participate in mediation and will impose sanctions if debtor fails to do so.
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue status conference to October 6, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by September 22, 2020. Court will extend deadline to complete mediation to October 6, 2020. Plantiff should move for relief from stay to authorize the continuation of this litigation. Scheduling order should say that, once relief from stay has been granted, mediation should be completed by extended date, and court will enforce its order that mediation be completed by this date once relief from stay has
2:00 PM
been granted. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Relief from stay was granted in debtor's chapter 13 case on September 18, 2020 and order included waiver of 14-day stay. Impose sanctions of $150 on debtor for failing to participate in preparation of joint status report. Did mediation proceed on October 1, 2020 as scheduled? Hearing required. If defendant failed to appear at mediation, impose additional sanctions of $250 and issue order to show cause why his answer to complaint should not be stricken and plaintiff entitled to proceed by way of default. Set hearing on OSC for same date as a continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for November 17, 2020:
If court concludes that defendant's answer to complaint should be stricken based on his failure to cooperate in the adjudication of this action, set deadline for plaintiff to bring motion for default judgment and continue status conference to date of hearing on motion for default judgment. Deny request for further monetary sanctions.
12/1/20 -- Court entered an order striking defendant's answer to complaint and authorizing plaintiff to proceed by way of default.
12/1/20 -- Court entered scheduling order setting following dates:
L/D for plaintiff to file motion for default judgment -- December 22, 2020
Hearing on motion for default judgment and status conference -- January 12, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. (No joint status report is required.)
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021:
Continue status conference to January 26, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion for default judgment.
Tentative Ruling for January 26, 2021:
If Court grants motion for default judgment, take status conference off calendar. If Court does not grant motion for default judgment, continue status conference to coincide with date of
2:00 PM
continued hearing on default judgment motion.
Debtor(s):
Walter Steven Nevarez Represented By Richard A Avetisyan
Defendant(s):
Walter Steven Nevarez Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Elizabeth K.. Beaver Recovable Represented By
Anton R E Richardson
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01672 Miller v. SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF DECEMBER 14, 2012 et al
Docket 14
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/21/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Robyn Sokol, (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000
Listen only:
Elise D. Miller, (213) 617-5234
Rulings on Evidentiary Objections
Objections to Miller Declaration
Overrule objection. With exception of first phrase, which is there for context, the rest is not hearsay. Statements by party opponent are not hearsay under the federal rules.
Overrule to the extent that trustee is explaining the basis for her concern. Sustain to the extent that she is trying to prove the truth of the matter
2:00 PM
asserted.
See ruling for objection no. 2.
Overrule. See ruling for objection no. 1.
Overrule.
See ruling for objection no. 2.
Court understands this as a statement about the trustee's concerns as to what might happen in the future. Trustee has personal knowledge as to her concerns. This is not evidence as to what will actually happen in the future. Trustee is not clarvoyant. Overrule.
Objections to Mehra Declaration
Sustain.
Sustain.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Tentative Ruling on Merits
Court is satisfied that trustee has carried her burden of proof to establish that she has a strong likelihood of success on the merits. Notwithstanding the absence of legal title in the debtor, he is the only party exercising control over the assets in question and has used them for his own benefit. He has treated the assets for all purposes as if they are his to do with as he sees fit. As to the likelihood of irreparable injury, court agrees that, absent injunctive relief, there is a high likelihood that the assets or their value will be dissipated and that the trustee will be unable to recover them. As to the balance of the equities, purpose of injunction is to maintain the status quo for the benefit of all concerned. If debtor is concerned that relief requested will damage the value of the assets, he will need to explain in more concrete terms what he would still like to be able to do after entry of a preliminary injunction. As to the public interest, maintaining the status quo would preserve the value of the assets for affected third parties. Grant motion. Enter preliminary injunction prohibiting debtor from disposing of, dissipating, transferring or encumbering assets that are the subject of this action.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
Robert Mayman Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se
SAVANNAH SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE Pro Se
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
MARK ABBEY SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
748 DETROIT MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
14257 CHANDLER MANOR LLC Represented By
David S Mayes
2:00 PM
17841 PALORA MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
Plaintiff(s):
Elissa Miller Represented By
Robyn B Sokol
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01672 Miller v. SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF DECEMBER 14, 2012 et al
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/22/21 - Robyn Sokol, (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000
Listen only:
Elise D. Miller, (213) 617-5234
2:00 PM
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on motion for preliminary injunction.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
Robert Mayman Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se
MARK ABBEY SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
748 DETROIT MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
14257 CHANDLER MANOR LLC Represented By
David S Mayes
17841 PALORA MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
SAVANNAH SLOTKIN Represented By
2:00 PM
David S Mayes
INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE Pro Se
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
Plaintiff(s):
Elissa Miller Represented By
Robyn B Sokol
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01669 Delco Products, LLC v. Marks
Docket 6
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/25/21 - Fredric J. Greenblatt, (818) 992-1188 1/25/21 - Christopher J. Langley, (714) 515-5656
According to status report, parties have agreed that plaintiff should file amended complaint. Therefore, grant motion with leave to amend. If complaint has not yet been filed, set deadline for filing complaint. Set deadline for defendant to respond to amended complaint.
Debtor(s):
Richard Marks Represented By Christopher J Langley
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Richard Marks Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
Richard Marks Represented By Christopher J Langley
Plaintiff(s):
Delco Products, LLC Represented By Fredric J Greenblatt
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01669 Delco Products, LLC v. Marks
Docket 2
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/25/21 - Frederick Greenblatt, (818)992-1188
Set discovery cutoff for late April 2021 and continued status conference for approximately same time frame.
Debtor(s):
Richard Marks Represented By Christopher J Langley
Defendant(s):
Richard Marks Represented By Christopher J Langley
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Delco Products, LLC Represented By Fredric J Greenblatt
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 52
1/21/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 24, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 27, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Samvel Gukasyan Represented By Armen Shaghzo
Movant(s):
Samvel Gukasyan Represented By Armen Shaghzo
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 8
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/25/21 - David L. Neale, (310) 229-1234
1/25/21 - Todd M. Arnold, (310) 229-1234
1/15/21 - Anthony Rothman, (424) 273-8842
Rulings on Evidentiary Objections:
Creditor's Objections:
Ahders Declaration:
Overrule objection as to lack of signature (as we now have signatures). Sustain lack of foundation objection (as declarant does not explain his job functions/duties/title and how he has personal knowledge of subject of testimony).
10:00 AM
Sustain (lack of foundation).
Sustain (best evidence). Overrule balance of objection.
Sustain (lack of foundation).
Blakely Declaration
Sustain (best evidence rule).
Overrule. (NOTE: Fact that objecting party may be able to introduce contrary evidence is not a basis for an evidentiary objection. Inaccurate testimony may nevertheless be admissible.)
Sustain as to first sentence (lack of personal knowledge). Overrule as to second sentence (failure to pay despite repeated requests).
McCarthy Declaration
Overrule. (We now have signatures.)
Sustain (lack of foundation).
Sustain (lack of foundation).
Putative Debtor's Objections
(NOTE: Although captioned as objections to three declarations, body of objection refers only to the declaration of Louis Disanto.)
Sustain.
Sustain.
Tentative Ruling on Merits:
Court agrees that alleged debtor cannot appear and file this motion as it has been suspended. Case cited in reply (In re Feature Homes) is not on point. That case stands for the proposition that even a suspended corporation may be a debtor in bankruptcy. This does not mean that a suspended corporation may move to dismiss a bankruptcy petition.
It is not relevant that the petitioning creditor may have other claims against the debtor that are the subject of a bona fide dispute. The claim that the creditor is relying upon as the basis for the involuntary petition has been reduced to judgment and is not therefore the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount. If the debtor had recoupment claims, those would have been mandatory counterclaims (as they would have arisen out of the same
10:00 AM
set of transactions and occurrences) and are necessarily merged into the judgment. And the existence of a setoff (as distinguished from recoupment) does not convert a judgment into a claim that is the subject of a bona fide dispute as to amount.
Court is not persuaded that the claim is secured. Even if the UCC-1 were sufficient to create a security interest, movant has not established that there is sufficient collateral to make that security interest worth anything and even an undersecured creditor can qualify as a petitioning creditor.
Creditors have introduced admissions as to the limited number of creditors and debtor does not appear to have disputed that it has less than 12 creditors. As to issue of whether the debtor is generally paying its debts as they become due, this appears to be a genuine issue of material fact. Court cannot resolve it summarily.
Deny motion. Set deadline for debtor to file an answer to the petition (which it cannot do unless it has been reinstated by that date).
Debtor(s):
Rogue Apparel Group Inc. Represented By
Anthony J Rothman Esq
Movant(s):
Rogue Apparel Group Inc. Represented By
Anthony J Rothman Esq
10:00 AM
Docket 1
1/25/21 - David L. Neale, (310) 229-1234
1/25/21 - Todd M. Arnold, (310) 229-1234
1/25/21 - Anthony Rothman, (424) 273-8842
When will debtor be able to resolve corporate status issues? Will the parties need to engage in discovery as to whether the debtor is generally paying its debts as they become due? Is there a dispute as to the number of creditors?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Rogue Apparel Group Inc. Represented By
Anthony J Rothman Esq
10:00 AM
Docket 1
1/22/21 - Mel Arnoff, (818)451-4616
1/26/21 - Simon Aron/Johnny White, (310)744-6601 1/26/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-416
12/23/20 -- Court approved order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- January 11, 2021
Bar date -- April 9, 2021
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Has broker had an opportunity to assess value of property? Does broker believe that property can be sold for an amount in excess of the secured claims? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
1369 Londonderry Estate, LLC Represented By Todd L Turoci
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
Docket 1
12/17/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court advised parties that this status conference would be called at 11:00 a.m. instead of 10:00 a.m.
OFF CALENDAR.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
10:00 AM
Authorizing Chapter 7 Trustee to Abandon Real Property Located at 911 Loma Vista Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Per 11 U.S.C. Section 554
Authorizing Chapter 7 Trustee to Abandon Pending Adversary Proceeding Case No. 2:20-ap-01623-BB Per 11 U.S.C. Section 554
Reconsidering the Enforcement Order Entered January 13, 2021 as to the Trustee
[OST]
Docket 207
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/25/21 - David B. Golubchik, 310-229-1234 1/25/21 - Thomas Casey, 949-766-8787 Ext. 101
1/26/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931
The motion is silent as to the trustee's intentions with regard to the personal property located within the debtor's residence. Does the trustee seek
10:00 AM
authority to abandon that as well? Is the Court correct in understanding paragraph 34 of the Donald Fife's declaration to mean that, after payment of sales taxes, closing costs and the debtor's exemption, the personal property would produce (if the sale were to proceed) net proceeds of $90,000?
The motion seeks authority to abandon the debtor's adversary proceeding against BOBS as well as the underlying real property. The nature of this litigation is such that the estate could not retain this litigation if it abandons the underlying real property, but court would like additional information concerning the representation made in the motion that the lawsuit is unlikely to produce sufficient value to enable the estate to pay the $2.56 million in estimated capital gains taxes. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to have the lender's claim treated as wholly unsecured due to problems with the documentation. Is the trustee persuaded that the estate is unlikely to prevail on this claim?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:00 AM
[OST]
Docket 215
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/25/21 - Thomas Casey, 949-766-8787 Ext. 101
1/26/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931
Court must resolve matter no. 6 first. If Court grants trustee's motion, reconsiders the sale order and authorizes the trustee to abandon the property, court cannot enter an order compelling the debtor to transfer the property. Once abandonment occurs, the property is no longer an asset of the bankruptcy estate and is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. (See, e.g., In re Grossinger's Assocs., 184 B.R. 429 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995) and cases cited therein.)
Although Court could hold the debtor in civil contempt for violating an order of this court, even after the underlying real property has been abandoned, movant has not requested that remedy in this motion, and that will not work in any event. If the Court grants the trustee's motion to reconsider and vacate
10:00 AM
the order that compels the debtor and/or the trustee to execute the sale documents in light of the newly-discovered tax liability, there will no longer be an order that compels the debtor to sign these documents.
Once the property is abandoned, movant can bring an action in state court for breach of contract and seek the remedy of specific performance, but there are at least two problems with this approach (other than the length of time it would take to compel performance). First, if the court reconsiders the order approving the sale as having been improvidently entered, the debtor will no longer be obligated to perform as it will be as if the court did not approve the agreement. Second, once the property has been abandoned, the automatic stay that prevents BOBS from proceeding with its foreclosure will terminate.
Although it may be that BOBS and the debtor will negotiate something that would permit the debtor to retain the property after abandonment, this will not resolve the first problem.
With regard to the movant's request for attorneys' fees, although there may be an exclusion from the mediation requirement, attorneys' fees may only be awarded under the contract to the prevailing party. If the Court vacates its prior order compelling performance of the contract, movant will no longer be the prevailing party in this dispute.
Therefore, it appears that this motion must be denied. If the Court denies the trustee's motion, this motion will be moot (except with regard to the request for attorneys' fees). If the Court grants the trustee's motion, the Court will be without jurisdiction to order the relief that movant seeks.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
fr 5-11-16, 6-7-16, 7-21-16, 7-27-16, 9-28-16, 10-18-16, 11-29-16, 12-7-16,
3-8-17, 6-14-17, 7-11-17, 7-26-17, 8-15-17, 10-18-17, 1-10-18, 2-14-18, 3-1-18,
6-7-18, 10-17-18, 2-6-19, 8-7-19, 9-11-19, 12-11-19, 1-8-20, 1-9-20, 3-18-20,
5-6-20, 8-5-20, 10-21-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/21/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798
1/26/21 - Jolene Tanner, (213)894-3544
Tentative Ruling for August 16, 2017:
Court waived the requirement that the trustee file an updated status report in connection with this status conference and set this date as a holding date.
Are there any upcoming hearings scheduled in this chapter 11 case?
Final Ruling for August 16, 2017:
11:00 AM
Continue status conference to October 18, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. Updated status report should be served and filed not later than October 6, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for October 18, 2017:
Continue case status conference to January 10, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
Disclosure statement should be noticed for same date and time, provided it is filed and served not less than 42 days before this date. Waive requirement of updated status report. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 18, 2017.
1/9/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to February 14, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 10, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for February 14, 2018:
Continue case status conference to March 1, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters on calendar at that date and time. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2018. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 6, 2018:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on plan confirmation.
Tentative Ruling for October 17, 2018:
Court has reviewed post-confirmation status report. Continue post- confirmation status conference to February 6, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Plan Trustee should file and serve updated status report not later than January 25, 2019. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 17, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for February 6, 2019:
Court has reviewed the trustee's status report and updated status report. Discuss with the parties' Mr. Hudson's decision to move the Pico location less than a mile away to a different location on La Brea.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for August 7, 2019:
Has Hudson made the second Shortfall Payment yet ($975,000)? If not, continue status conference until shortly after deadline for cure of this default (August 10, 2019) to see whether default is cured.
What is the status of the dispute with regard to the La Brea Restaurant? The occurrence of another restricted transaction without the trustee's consent constitutes yet another event of default under the plan. (NOTE: There is no meaningful distinction between closing the Pico location and driving it out of business, forcing it to close as unprofitable, by opening a new location less than a mile away on La Brea. No businessperson who was actually attempting to operate the Pico location profitably or to fulfill his obligations under the plan in good faith would do this.)
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for September 11, 2019:
Court has reviewed the plan trustee's status report. Continue case status conference to December 11, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Plan trustee should file and serve updated status report not later than December 2, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 11, 2019:
Continue case status conference to January 8, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. so that it can be after the foreclosure sale scheduled for December 12, 2019. Plan trustee need not file an updated status report. Counsel for trustee can report orally at the January 8, 2020 conference. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for January 9, 2020:
What, if anything, has transpired since the last status report? Did a foreclosure sale occur on December 12? If so, what happened at the sale? Hearing required.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for March 18, 2020:
Did the foreclosure proceed on March 16? If not, why not? How will the closure of restaurants in Los Angeles impact the trustee's ability to perform under the confirmed plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for March 18, 2020:
Parties have entered into a second amended forebearance agreement, postponing foreclosure to April 15, 2020 in exchange for an additional payment of $12,500. Continue status conference to May 6, 2020 at 11:00
a.m. Plan trustee should file updated status report addressing plan compliance issues not later than April 24, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for May 6, 2020:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue case status conference to August 5, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Plan trustee should file updated status report not later than July 24, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 6, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Court has reviewed the plan trustee's status report. Continue status conferences to October 21, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than October 9, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Court has reviewed the plan trustee's status report. Continue status conferences to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than January 15, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 21, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Court has reviewed the plan trustee's status report. Continue status
11:00 AM
conferences to May 26, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than May 14, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
East Coast Foods, Inc. Represented By Vahe Khojayan Philip E Strok
Michael Jay Berger
Trustee(s):
Bradley D. Sharp (TR) Represented By Zev Shechtman
Uzzi O Raanan ESQ John N Tedford IV
Brian Weiss Represented By
Robert S Marticello Philip E Strok Michael Simon Timothy W Evanston
11:00 AM
fr. 12-17-20
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/21/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798 1/21/21 - Zev Shechtman
1/21/21 - Michael G. D’Alba
1/22/21 - Holly J. Nolan, (858)793-8516
1/22/21 - Tom Normandin (714)547-2444 1/25/21 - Evelina Gentry, (213) 688-9500
1/25/21 - Catherine Kretzschmar, (954) 463-2700
1/26/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
11:00 AM
Listening only (probably):
Alphamorlai Kebeh (law clerk)
Danielle Gabai (law clerk)
Yazdan Irani (CEO)
Kevin Tierney (reorg advisor)
Anthony Scalese (financial advisor)
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Court is confused. Is this really a cash collateral motion or is the debtor seeking approval for its proposed adequate protection programs in an effort to prevent lendors/lessors from seeking relief from stay with regard to its vehicles on the ground that they lack adequate protection?
In other words, where is the cash collateral? According to the motion and the accompanying declaration, when one of its vehicles is sold, the debtor is required to pay either all of the net proceeds to the lender/lessor or at least the portion of the net proceeds necessary to satisfy the balance due under the lease. (If the net proceeds are insufficient for this purpose, debtor will still owe the balance.) Does the debtor plan to start retaining the net proceeds generated from vehicle sales in violation of the contracts?
Do the relevant agreements make the post-petition rents that the debtor charges for the use of its vehicles proceeds that are subject to the lessor/lendor's security interests? Do any of the lenders have security interests in the payments the debtor receives under its governmental contracts? Does the debtor have other accounts receivable in which the lessors/lenders assert security interests? If not, is there any sense in which the debtor is planning to use cash collateral?
Hearing required.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for December 17, 2020:
(See interim order entered December 18, 2020. Court authorized use of cash collateral on interim basis through the close of business on June 29, 2021 in accordance with budget plus a 10 percent variance. Final hearing set for January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Parties must refer to local rules and court manual and serve copies of papers filed on Judge Bluebond. Papers that are not served on the judge will not be considered (unless they are 25 pages or less in length). Papers filed less than two weeks prior to a hearing must be served using an expedited service method (overnight mail, FedEx, etc.)
First Source Bank complains in part that the proposed adequate protection payments are insufficient to compensate it for the depreciation in the value of the vehicles that form its collateral. This is a cash collateral motion. The court will only adjudicate in this context the extent to which the debtor's proposal does or does not provide adequate protection for the use of a lender's CASH collateral. To the extent that a lender believes the debtor is not providing adequate protection for depreciation in the value of a noncash item of collateral, it is free to bring a motion for relief from stay with regard to that item or category of collateral (or to negotiate other arrangements with the debtor). The grant of this motion will not resolve that issue.
Similarly, if a lessor claims that it holds a true lease of a vehicle and is therefore entitled to payments in accordance with its lease from and after the 60th day of this case, a decision by this court to grant the instant motion would have no affect on such rights. The debtor has not requested and the court is not considering whether to relieve the debtor of any obligation to make such payments.
To the extent that the debtor seeks authority to make adequate protection payments by way of this motion, approval of the motion will not constitute a finding that the proposed adequate payments actually provide adequate
11:00 AM
protection for the use of anything other than cash collateral.
Court remains concerned that debtor might be required to use cash collateral of one lender to make payments to a different lender if debtor intends to make adequate protection payments to a given lender that exceed the rents generated by that lender's collateral. Is it necessarily the case that this won't occur under the debtor's current proposal?
At the interim hearing, the court was able to determine from budget that any diminution in the cash collateral balances due to the debtors' use of these funds would be more than offset by the cash payments that the debtor would be making during the interim period. Does this remain the case during this period?
Can it be argued that the court should apply equitable principles under section 552(b)(1) to treat only a portion of any post-petition rental payments received as proceeds of the lenders' prepetition collateral?
With regard to proceeds generated from sales of vehicles, turning over all net proceeds generated by the sale of the vehicle is, by definition, adequate protection for the lender's interest in these proceeds. But it should be noted that approval of this motion would not constitute authority for the debtor to sell vehicles out of the ordinary course or to depart from contractual obligations with regard to the procedures for selling vehicles. Pursuant to section 363 of the code, debtor can continue to use, sell or lease property in the ordinary course of business. If debtor wants to sell vehicles other than in the ordinary course of business, it will need to bring a motion requesting such relief.
Instant motion is not such a motion. Replacement liens should suffice to provide adequate protection for lenders with an interest in other forms of cash collateral.
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
11:00 AM
Movant(s):
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
Docket 87
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/21/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798 1/21/21 - Zev Shechtman
1/21/21 - Michael G. D’Alba
1/22/21 - Holly J. Nolan, (858)793-8516
1/22/21 - Tom Normandin (714)547-2444 1/25/21 - Evelina Gentry, (213) 688-9500
1/25/21 - Catherine Kretzschmar, (954) 463-2700 1/26/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168 Listening only (probably):
11:00 AM
Alphamorlai Kebeh (law clerk)
Danielle Gabai (law clerk)
Yazdan Irani (CEO)
Kevin Tierney (reorg advisor)
Anthony Scalese (financial advisor)
In paragraph 10 of the proposed procedures on page 10, the motion proposes that formal fee applications will be filed "not less frequently than every 120 days." With the exception of resolving any disputes that may arise if someone objects to a monthly fee statement, which could occur more than once every 120 days, if court approves Knudsen procedures, court does not want the professionals filing fee applications more frequently than once every 120 days. Subject to the foregoing caveat/modification, grant motion and approve proposed procedures.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
MOVANT: UNION LEASING, INC.
Docket 96
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/21/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798 1/21/21 - Zev Shechtman
1/21/21 - Michael G. D’Alba
1/22/21 - Holly J. Nolan, (858)793-8516
1/22/21 - Tom Normandin (714)547-2444 1/25/21 - Evelina Gentry, (213) 688-9500
1/25/21 - Catherine Kretzschmar, (954) 463-2700
1/26/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
11:00 AM
Listening only (probably):
Alphamorlai Kebeh (law clerk)
Danielle Gabai (law clerk)
Yazdan Irani (CEO)
Kevin Tierney (reorg advisor)
Anthony Scalese (financial advisor)
Have the parties succeeded in negotiating a resolution of this motion? If not, the court understands that they would like hearing continued to February 10, 2021. Is this correct? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Union Leasing, Inc. Represented By Glenn S Walter
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/21/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798 1/21/21 - Zev Shechtman
1/21/21 - Michael G. D’Alba
1/22/21 - Holly J. Nolan, (858)793-8516
1/22/21 - Tom Normandin (714)547-2444 1/25/21 - Evelina Gentry, (213) 688-9500
1/25/21 - Catherine Kretzschmar, (954) 463-2700
1/26/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Listening only (probably):
11:00 AM
Alphamorlai Kebeh (law clerk)
Danielle Gabai (law clerk)
Yazdan Irani (CEO)
Kevin Tierney (reorg advisor)
Anthony Scalese (financial advisor)
12/17/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court advised parties that this status conference would be called at 11:00 a.m. instead of 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Set deadline for service of notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
#105.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Mark Slotkin and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of
$29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21
Docket 130
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547 1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
Tentative Ruling from November 4, 2020:
11:00 AM
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Slotkin to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing debtor to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file
11:00 AM
and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court continued hearing to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to either produce all documents that he has been ordered to produce or to execute declarations in the form prepared by movant (Exhibit B).
Responses will be due by January 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
In response to the Court's OSC, respondent filed an amended declaration. Respondent filed no other response to the OSC. Is movant satisfied with the form of declaration executed by Mr. Slotkin on his own behalf? If not, why not? (The only difference appears to be the inclusion of the phrase, "After performing a diligent search and reasonable inquiry.)
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#106.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by 8777 Appian Way, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21
Docket 133
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
11:00 AM
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Appian Way to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file
11:00 AM
and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court continued hearing to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to either produce all documents that he has been ordered to produce or to execute declarations in the form prepared by movant (Exhibit B).
Responses will be due by January 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
In response to the Court's OSC, respondent filed an amended declaration; however, that declaration is not in the form required by the Court's OSC in that it does not purport to be on behalf of the entity. Respondent filed no other response to the OSC. Hold Mr. Slotkin in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's December 14, 2020 order. Issue a bench warrant for his arrest and direct that he be incarcerated until he either produces the requested documents or executes a compliant declaration.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#107.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Antiquarian Traders, Inc. and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21
Docket 136
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
11:00 AM
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Antiquarian Traders to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file
11:00 AM
and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court continued hearing to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to either produce all documents that he has been ordered to produce or to execute declarations in the form prepared by movant (Exhibit B).
Responses will be due by January 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
In response to the Court's OSC, respondent filed an amended declaration; however, that declaration is not in the form required by the Court's OSC in that it does not purport to be on behalf of the entity. Respondent filed no other response to the OSC. Hold Mr. Slotkin in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's December 14, 2020 order. Issue a bench warrant for his arrest and direct that he be incarcerated until he either produces the requested documents or executes a compliant declaration.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#108.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Golden Oak Partners, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21
Docket 145
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Golden Oak to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as
11:00 AM
objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent
11:00 AM
has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Final Ruling for January 13, 2021:
11:00 AM
Court continued hearing to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to either produce all documents that he has been ordered to produce or to execute declarations in the form prepared by movant (Exhibit B).
Responses will be due by January 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
In response to the Court's OSC, respondent filed an amended declaration; however, that declaration is not in the form required by the Court's OSC in that it does not purport to be on behalf of the entity. Respondent filed no other response to the OSC. Hold Mr. Slotkin in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's December 14, 2020 order. Issue a bench warrant for his arrest and direct that he be incarcerated until he either produces the requested documents or executes a compliant declaration.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#109.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Olympic Holdings, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21
Docket 148
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
11:00 AM
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Olympic to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file
11:00 AM
and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#110.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Clover Industrial Properties, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21
Docket 142
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Clover to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections
11:00 AM
have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent
11:00 AM
has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Final Ruling for January 13, 2021:
11:00 AM
Court continued hearing to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to either produce all documents that he has been ordered to produce or to execute declarations in the form prepared by movant (Exhibit B).
Responses will be due by January 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
In response to the Court's OSC, respondent filed an amended declaration; however, that declaration is not in the form required by the Court's OSC in that it does not purport to be on behalf of the entity. Respondent filed no other response to the OSC. Hold Mr. Slotkin in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's December 14, 2020 order. Issue a bench warrant for his arrest and direct that he be incarcerated until he either produces the requested documents or executes a compliant declaration.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
#111.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Breakfront, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of
$29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21
Docket 139
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Breakfront to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections
11:00 AM
have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent
11:00 AM
has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Final Ruling for January 13, 2021:
11:00 AM
Court continued hearing to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to either produce all documents that he has been ordered to produce or to execute declarations in the form prepared by movant (Exhibit B).
Responses will be due by January 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
In response to the Court's OSC, respondent filed an amended declaration; however, that declaration is not in the form required by the Court's OSC in that it does not purport to be on behalf of the entity. Respondent filed no other response to the OSC. Hold Mr. Slotkin in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's December 14, 2020 order. Issue a bench warrant for his arrest and direct that he be incarcerated until he either produces the requested documents or executes a compliant declaration.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
Docket 255
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
See tentative ruling for matter no. 105.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
Docket 257
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
See tentative ruling for matter no. 106.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
Docket 259
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
See tentative ruling for matter no. 107.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
Docket 261
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
See tentative ruling for matter no. 108.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
Docket 260
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
See tentative ruling for matter no. 109.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
Docket 258
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
See tentative ruling for matter no. 110.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
11:00 AM
Docket 256
1/22/21 - Jessica Wellington (818)827-9000 1/22/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 1/22/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
1/22/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
1/26/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 1/26/21 - A. Kelly Williams (listen only)
See tentative ruling for matter no. 111.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
2:00 PM
Docket 1151
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/14/21 - J. Scott Bovitz, (213)346-8300
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Altadena Lincoln Crossing LLC Represented By Lisa Lenherr
Gregory M Salvato Justin P Karczag
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Represented By Timothy J Yoo Eve H Karasik
2:00 PM
Jeffrey S Kwong Carmela Pagay
2:00 PM
Docket 147
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Roberto Robles Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
2:00 PM
Docket 41
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/25/21 - David M. Goodrich, (714) 966-1000
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Candina Marie Ozuna Represented By
Raj T Wadhwani
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich
2:00 PM
Docket 33
NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Luis Enrique Elias Portillo Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 27
NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Robin Weiser Represented By Anita Khachikyan
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 24
NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Maxine E Dillard Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 1
Continue case status conference to July 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with status conference in Pouladian adversary proceeding. Debtor need not file new case status report in connection with July 14 case status conference.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 3, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2020:
How are the debtor's operations? Has the debtor been meeting its projections? May 26 status report referred to efforts by the debtor to obtain DIP financing and represented that debtor anticipated filing one or more financing motions by June 25. This hasn't happened. What is the status of debtor's efforts to obtain financing?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for July 14, 2020:
Continue status conference to September 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (Court changed this to 11:00 a.m.) Debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than
2:00 PM
September 4, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for September 16, 2020:
Continue case status conference to date that can serve as date of hearing on disclosure statement.
Final Ruling for September 16, 2020:
Continue case status conference to January 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Disclosure statement may be heard at same time if debtor files plan and disclosure statement sufficiently in advance of that date to comply with applicable rules. Status report waived if court is conducting hearing on disclosure statement concurrently with status conference.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Continue status conference to date that can serve as date of hearing on disclosure statement if debtor files plan and disclosure statement by February 1, 2021 -- March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Debtor need not file updated status report for that status conference. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: CAB WEST, LLC.
Docket 8
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
John R Prewitt Represented By Darrel C Menthe
Movant(s):
Cab West, LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01117 Retail Capital Partners, LLC. v. Oh et al
fr. 7-14-20, 11-3-20
Docket 4
Why don't the parties want this matter sent to mediation? Hearing required. 8/11/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for November 3, 2020:
Did the parties participate in a mediation on October 27, 2020. If so, what was the outcome? If not, why not?
If matter did not settle, set discovery cutoff for approxiamtely 120 days and final status conference for approximately same time frame.
11/13/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting continued status conference for
2:00 PM
February 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. and discovery cutoff for January 31, 2021. Parties should file joint status report not later than January 19, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
Parties report that discovery is complete. Set a deadline for filing any pretrial motions and a date for pretrial conference.
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Defendant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
Joint Debtor(s):
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
Plaintiff(s):
Retail Capital Partners, LLC. Represented By Joshua J Herndon
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01126 Pouladian v. Deco Enterprises, Inc. et al
fr. 7-14-20, 9-1-20, 11-3-20, 12-1-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/29/21 - John Yates, (818)381-5891
2/1/21 - Raymond Aver, (310)571-3511
According to the parties' status report, a mediation must be completed in a related LASC action by July 31, 2020. Have the parties scheduled a mediation date? Hearing required.
7/21/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for Edith Pouladian to file and serve response to cross-complaint -- August 4,
2:00 PM
2020
L/D for plaintiff to file and serve opposition to motion to dismiss (if response is a motion to dismiss) -- August 18, 2020
L/D for Edith Pouladian to file and serve reply to any such opposition -- August 25, 2020
Contined status conference and hearing on any motion to dismiss -- September 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for September 1, 2020:
What is the status of this matter? Set deadline for filing of responses to first amended cross-complaint. How long do the parties anticipate it will take to conduct discovery? Hearing required.
9/2/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for cross-complainants to file second amended cross-comlaint -- 9/11/20 L/D to file joint status report -- October 20, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- November 3, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for November 3, 2020:
Where is joint status report that should have been filed by October 20, 2020? How much time do the parties need to conduct discovery? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to an early mediation? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
If court grants motion to dismiss (number 214), the number of claims asserted in this adversary proceeding will be reduced and the parties' responses to the questions posed in the status report may be different. Continue status conference approximately 60 to 90 days and require parties to file an updated status report. (The parties should respond to all questions raised by the status report.)
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
2:00 PM
Parties have already completed a day of mediation. Discuss with parties whether additional mediation would be helpful. Does either party contemplate being in a position to bring any pretrial motions? Set discovery cutoff and continue case status conference.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
Defendant(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
Craig Allen Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Benjamin Pouladian Represented By John R Yates
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01623 Moshkovich v. Bobs, LLC et al
Docket 19
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
On January 27, 2021, court continued hearing on trustee's motion to abandon to February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Continue hearing on motion to dismiss and status conference to March 16, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties need not file updated status report for that status conference.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Bobs, LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
2:00 PM
Movant(s):
David Jacob
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Plaintiff(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01623 Moshkovich v. Bobs, LLC et al
fr. 11-17-20
Docket 1
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar.
12/2/20 -- Court entered order on motion to dismiss denying motion as to all claims other than 6th claim for relief (fraudulent transfer) and 7th claim for relief (elder abuse). The motion is granted with leave to amend as to 6th claim for relief and granted without leave to amend as to 7th claim for relief. Amended complaint must be filed by December 18, 2020. Defendant must respond to amended complaint by January 8, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
On January 27, 2021, court continued hearing on trustee's motion to abandon to February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Continue hearing on motion to dismiss and status conference to March 16, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties need not file updated status report for that status conference.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Bobs, LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Plaintiff(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
$100 was due on 12/11/20
$100 was due on 1/12/21
$100 is due on 2/12/21
Docket 11
Vacate OSC as moot. Case has already been dismissed. Court will prepare order. No appearance required.
Debtor(s):
Damien Robert De Leon Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 8
Tentative Ruling for January 14, 2021:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 14, 2021:
Continue hearing to February 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give debtor an opportunity to discuss with Wells Fargo whether it will commit to report payments to credit reporting agency if debtor reaffirms contract.
Tentative Ruling for February 3, 2021:
Was the debtor able to speak with someone at Wells Fargo? If so, what was the outcome of the discussion? Hearing required.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Sheila Medina Represented By Omar Zambrano
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 39
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/2/21 - Brian Parsons, (626)340-8050 2/2/21 - Lucy Mavyan, (626) 395-7576 2/3/21 - Matthew Peters, (626)344-1956
Grant motion. Approve sale to highest bidder. Authorize trustee to pay debtor reduced homestead exemption pursuant to agreement between the parties.
Debtor(s):
Christopher Gordon Fields Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
Docket 1
10/24/19 -- Court granted motion for order setting bar date: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 28, 2019
Bar date -- December 27, 2019
Tentative Ruling for December 11, 2019:
Is there any seasonality to the debtor's business? If so, what is it? What has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to file a plan and disclosure statement? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for December 11, 2019:
Continue case status conference to March 18, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Disclosure statement may be heard at same date and time if filed not less than 42 days prior to this date. Debtor should file and serve updated status report by March 6, 2020. (Court later moved hearing to March 26, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.)
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for March 26, 2020:
PARTIES WISHING TO APPEAR MUST MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY BY CONTACTING COURT CALL AT 866-582-6878 OR ONLINE.
Continue case status conference to be heard concurrently with hearing on disclosure statement scheduled for April 29, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Debtors need not file updated status report. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 26, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 29, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for June 17, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for August 12, 2020:
If court confirms plan, schedule post-confirmation status conference and set deadline for reorganized debtor to file status report.
Tentative Ruling for February 3, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's post-confirmation status report. Continue case status conference to August; 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than July 23, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 3, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Settlers Jerky Inc. Represented By David L. Neale
Krikor J Meshefejian
11:00 AM
Docket 1
5/15/20 - ORDER ENTERED FOR ABSTENTION AND CLOSING OF CASE
Set deadline for debtor to serve notice of bar date and bar date. Discuss with debtor plan procedures and deadline for filing plan of reorganization. Discuss with debtor issues raised by proposed financing.
Hearing required.
5/4/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- July 22, 2020 at 11:00 am
L/D to serve bar date notice -- May 8, 2020 Bar date -- June 30, 2020
L/D to file updated status report -- July 10, 2020 L/D to file plan -- August 24, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 22, 2020:
11:00 AM
Court has reviewed debtor's status report. Continue status conference to August 26, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than August 17, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 26, 2020:
Court has reviewed debtor's status report. Continue status conference to October 21, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than October 9, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 26, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Court has reviewed debtor's status report. Continue status conference to December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than November 25, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 21, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed debtor's status report. Continue status conference to February 3, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than January 22, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
Court has reviewed debtor's status report. Debtor will not be seeking to reopen this case. Court will prepare and enter an order clarifying that case will not be reinstated and will remain closed. APPEARANCES WAIVED. COURT WILL PREPARE ORDER.
Debtor(s):
Joffe Emergency Services Represented By Stella A Havkin
Trustee(s):
John-Patrick McGinnis Fritz (TR) Represented By
11:00 AM
John-Patrick M Fritz
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 13
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
Jose De Jesus Torres Represented By Michael D Luppi
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION fr. 8-11-20, 10-20-20, 12-8-20
Docket 38
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/27/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 20, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 11, 2020.
10/6/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
11/30/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 9, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 8, 2020.
1/27/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2021.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Kyle Henry Walkenhorst Represented By Michael E Clark
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association Represented By Sean C Ferry Byron B Mauss
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Rosendo Gonzalez
10:00 AM
MOVANT: ALBERT ISSACO C/O SUTTER HILL INVESTMENTS fr. 9-29-20, 10-20-20, 12-8-20
Docket 44
ZoomGov Appearance by:
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 20, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2020.
10/6/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
11/30/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 9, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 8, 2020.
1/29/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2021.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Kyle Henry Walkenhorst Represented By Michael E Clark
Movant(s):
ALBERT ISSACO c/o Sutter Hill Represented By
Edward G Schloss
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Rosendo Gonzalez
10:00 AM
30-2019-01053317-CU-PO-CJC
MOVANT: PRAVEEN RAJENDIRAN JANANI KAMALANATHAN; KAMALANATHAN GOVIDAN AND KOTTIAYAN KANAHAMBARAM
Docket 118
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Zoom appearances by:
1/25/21 - R. Gibson Pagter, Jr. (714) 541-6072 Ext. 214
Grant motion with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) on terms set forth in debtor's notice of nonopposition.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Praveen Rajendiran Janani Represented By
R Gibson Pagter Jr.
10:00 AM
#4.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by 8777 Appian Way, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21, 1-27-21
Docket 133
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Appian Way to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
10:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
10:00 AM
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Final Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court continued hearing to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to either produce all documents that he has been ordered to produce or to execute declarations in the form prepared by movant (Exhibit B).
Responses will be due by January 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
10:00 AM
In response to the Court's OSC, respondent filed an amended declaration; however, that declaration is not in the form required by the Court's OSC in that it does not purport to be on behalf of the entity. Respondent filed no other response to the OSC. Hold Mr. Slotkin in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's December 14, 2020 order. Issue a bench warrant for his arrest and direct that he be incarcerated until he either produces the requested documents or executes a compliant declaration.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
#5.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Antiquarian Traders, Inc. and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21, 1-27-21
Docket 136
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Antiquarian Traders to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
10:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
10:00 AM
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Final Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court continued hearing to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to either produce all documents that he has been ordered to produce or to execute declarations in the form prepared by movant (Exhibit B).
Responses will be due by January 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
10:00 AM
In response to the Court's OSC, respondent filed an amended declaration; however, that declaration is not in the form required by the Court's OSC in that it does not purport to be on behalf of the entity. Respondent filed no other response to the OSC. Hold Mr. Slotkin in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's December 14, 2020 order. Issue a bench warrant for his arrest and direct that he be incarcerated until he either produces the requested documents or executes a compliant declaration.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
#6.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Olympic Holdings, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21, 1-27-21
Docket 148
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Olympic to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
10:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
10:00 AM
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
#7.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Breakfront, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of
$29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21, 1-27-21
Docket 139
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Breakfront to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
10:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
10:00 AM
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Final Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court continued hearing to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to either produce all documents that he has been ordered to produce or to execute declarations in the form prepared by movant (Exhibit B).
Responses will be due by January 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
10:00 AM
In response to the Court's OSC, respondent filed an amended declaration; however, that declaration is not in the form required by the Court's OSC in that it does not purport to be on behalf of the entity. Respondent filed no other response to the OSC. Hold Mr. Slotkin in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's December 14, 2020 order. Issue a bench warrant for his arrest and direct that he be incarcerated until he either produces the requested documents or executes a compliant declaration.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
#8.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Clover Industrial Properties, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21, 1-27-21
Docket 142
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Clover to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
10:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
10:00 AM
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Final Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court continued hearing to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to either produce all documents that he has been ordered to produce or to execute declarations in the form prepared by movant (Exhibit B).
Responses will be due by January 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
10:00 AM
In response to the Court's OSC, respondent filed an amended declaration; however, that declaration is not in the form required by the Court's OSC in that it does not purport to be on behalf of the entity. Respondent filed no other response to the OSC. Hold Mr. Slotkin in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's December 14, 2020 order. Issue a bench warrant for his arrest and direct that he be incarcerated until he either produces the requested documents or executes a compliant declaration.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
#9.00 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Golden Oak Partners, LLC and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $29,778.50
fr. 11-4-20, 12-9-20, 1-13-21, 1-27-21
Docket 145
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Grant motion insofar as it seeks to compel Golden Oak to produce documents without withholding any documents on the ground of privilege, as objections have been waived. Set continued hearing on issue of sanctions. Court would like to see breakdown of billings (detailed statements) and has no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is appropriate for movant to seek a single award of fees as against Slotkin and all entities, jointly and severally. (Court assumes that movant is not seeking, and is not entitled to collect, fees equal to $29,778.50 x 7.) There is no admissible evidence in the motion that any of these entities is the alter ego of any of the others or even that Slotkin controls these entities.
10:00 AM
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Enter interim order directing respondent to produce specific missing items by November 25, 2020. Movant should file 1 or more supplemental declarations with timesheets and breakdown by entities not later than November 20, 2020. Any supplemental opposition must be filed and served by December 2, 2020. Set continued hearing for December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. (Court entered interim order on November 9, 2020.)
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court has reviewed supplemental declarations. Response to supplemental declarations is argument, not evidence. Movant has provided detailed timesheets setting forth time spent. Even if court were prepared to find at this juncture (which it is not yet in a position to do) that respondent has now produced all documents requested, movant would be entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs that it was required to incur to get to this point. Enter orders awarding sanctions as against each of the seven respondents of $3,500 for the Troutman Pepper firm and $1,138.14 for Raines Feldman.
Has movant had an opportunity to determine the extent to which it has now received all documents that it requested?
Final Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Continue hearing to January 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent should file and serve supplemental declaration re compliance not later than December 30, 2020. Declaration should state under penalty of perjury that respondent has now provided all documents within his/its possession or custody or under its control that he/it was directed by the court's December 14, 2020 orders to produce. Court awarded sanctions as against each respondent of $4,638.14 ($1,138.14 payable to Raines Feldman and $3,500 payable to Troutman Pepper).
Tentative Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court has received seven declarations from Mr. Slotkin:
10:00 AM
One executed on his own behalf that does not specify whether he is referring to all of the documents referenced in the Court's December 14 order;
One that should be on behalf of Antiquarian Traders that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration;
One on behalf of Golden Oak Partners that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Breakfront, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One on behalf of Clover Industrial Properties, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity;
One that should be on behalf of 8777 Appian Way, LLC that is not executed on behalf of that entity and has the same problem as the first declaration; and
One on behalf of Olympic Holdings, LLC that has the same problem as the first declaration, but otherwise appears to comply with the court's order, except that it refers to all documents in "my" (Slotkin's) possession, custody and control and not that of the entity.
If movant is not satisfied with the declarations provided, direct movant to draft similar (but compliant) declarations for debtor's signature.
Final Ruling for January 13, 2021:
Court continued hearing to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. and issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to either produce all documents that he has been ordered to produce or to execute declarations in the form prepared by movant (Exhibit B).
Responses will be due by January 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
10:00 AM
In response to the Court's OSC, respondent filed an amended declaration; however, that declaration is not in the form required by the Court's OSC in that it does not purport to be on behalf of the entity. Respondent filed no other response to the OSC. Hold Mr. Slotkin in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's December 14, 2020 order. Issue a bench warrant for his arrest and direct that he be incarcerated until he either produces the requested documents or executes a compliant declaration.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
fr. 1-27-21
Docket 255
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Leslie A Cohen
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
fr. 1-27-21
Docket 257
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Leslie A Cohen
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
fr. 1-27-21
Docket 258
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Leslie A Cohen
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
fr. 1-27-21
Docket 259
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Leslie A Cohen
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
fr. 1-27-21
Docket 260
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Leslie A Cohen
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
fr. 1-27-21
Docket 261
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Movant reports that respondent has now provided satisfactory declaration, such that motions to compel are now resolved and orders to show cause should be vacated. OFF CALENDAR. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Court will prepare order vacating order to show cause.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Leslie A Cohen
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01157 Yoo v. Morga et al
fr. 9-15-20, 10-20-20
fr. 12-8-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Set deadline for plaintiff to file request for entry of default and motion for entry of default judgment. Continue status conference to coincide with hearing on default judgment motion.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to September 14, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF
CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to December 8, 2020 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than November 24, 2020 if matter has not been dismissed by then. OFF CALENDAR FOR
2:00 PM
OCTOBER 20, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to February 9, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than January 26, 2021 if matter has not been dismissed by then. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
At request of trustee, continue status conference to April 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than April 6, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Juanita Frances Lohran Represented By Timothy McFarlin
Defendant(s):
Teresa Ann Morga Pro Se
Juanita Frances Lohran Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Timothy J Yoo Represented By Carmela Pagay
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By Carmela Pagay
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01159 Yoo v. Kreimann et al
Complaint by Timothy J Yoo against Max Kreimann, Juanita Frances Lohran
fr. 9-15-20, 10-20-20
fr. 12-8-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Set deadline for plaintiff to file request for entry of default and motion for entry of default judgment. Continue status conference to coincide with hearing on default judgment motion.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to September 14, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF
CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to December 8, 2020 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than November 24, 2020 if matter has not been dismissed by then. OFF CALENDAR FOR
2:00 PM
OCTOBER 20, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to February 9, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than January 26, 2021 if matter has not been dismissed by then. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
At request of trustee, continue status conference to April 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than April 6, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Juanita Frances Lohran Represented By Timothy McFarlin
Defendant(s):
Max Kreimann Pro Se
Juanita Frances Lohran Pro Se
Max Kreimann as Trustee of the Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Timothy J Yoo Represented By Carmela Pagay
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By Carmela Pagay
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01695 Gutierrez v. Impresa Aerospace, LLC.
Docket 14
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/8/21 - Nicholas Kanter, (818)207-4105 2/8/21 - Matthew Harvey, (302)658-9200 2/8/21 - Paige Topper, (302)658-9200 2/8/21 - Ovsanna takvoryan, (818)205-9955
Deny motion to transfer venue and issue OSC why action should not be remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1452(b). Transfer of venue under section 1412 requires consideration of the surrounding facts and circumstances to assess whether a transfer would be in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties. While it might be convenient for the defendant/debtor to have this matter transferred to Delaware, that is the only party for whom it would be more convenient.
2:00 PM
The only factor that weighs in favor of a transfer to the District of Delaware is that that is where the defendant/debtor's bankruptcy case is pending. All other factors weigh against transferring venue there. All parties, including the debtor, are located in California. All of the class members are in California.
Any percipient witnesses would be located in California. The claims arise under California law. The only basis for federal jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. section 1334. The claim arose and was already pending in state court at the time the bankruptcy was filed. It may be possible for parties to appear virtually in Delaware now, but it is far from certain that virtual hearings will remain permissible for more than the next few months or that the Delaware bankruptcy court will permit any evidentiary hearings that may be required to be conducted virtually.
Even if the motion is denied, the Delaware bankruptcy court will retain a sufficient level of control over the future of this action and over debtor's assets. This Court assumes that relief from stay has not (yet) been granted and that, if and when it is, relief from stay will be limited to liquidating the claim and not to executing upon any monetary judgment that may be entered. Claimants will have to file a proof of claim (if they have not already done so) in the bankruptcy case if they would like to participate in any distribution of assets, and the bankruptcy court may permit any objection to that claim to be liquidated in Delaware through the claims objection process, if it so desires.
However, by leaving the underlying action in California (and remanding it to state court), the Delaware court will retain the option to grant relief from stay and permit the parties to liquidate their respective disputes to a final judgment in California state court.
Defendant(s):
Impresa Aerospace, LLC. Represented By Nicholas S Kanter
Plaintiff(s):
Sandra Gutierrez Represented By Ovsanna Takvoryan
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01221 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. ILWU-PMA v. Gomez
Docket 66
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Deny motion without prejudice as premature, or continue hearing until state court action has been resolved and debtor's liabilities have been liquidated. Court cannot make a determination that a judgment that has not yet been entered, once entered, will be nondischargeable. Court needs to see what the state court actually decides to ascertain whether or not any judgment for plaintiff that may be produced is nondischargeable. In the alternative, plaintiff could prove up its damages in this adversary proceeding, but plaintiff has not attempted to do so in this motion. At this point, there aren't any debts that can be declared nondischargeable.
Debtor(s):
David Gomez Represented By
Raj T Wadhwani
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
David Gomez Represented By Warren M Stanton
Plaintiff(s):
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Represented By Michael R Pinkston Maisie C Sokolove Christine S Hwang S Bradley Perkins Thomas E Fraysse Elizabeth Medrano Peter W Saltzman Justin T Curley
D Ward Kallstrom
ILWU-PMA WELFARE PLAN Represented By Michael R Pinkston Maisie C Sokolove Christine S Hwang S Bradley Perkins Thomas E Fraysse Elizabeth Medrano Peter W Saltzman Justin T Curley
D Ward Kallstrom
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01221 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. ILWU-PMA v. Gomez
Gomez
fr. 9-17-19, 11-5-19, 2-11-20, 4-7-20, 7-14-20, 10-20-20, 1-19-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for September 17, 2019:
Plaintiff obtained and served alias summons. Response to complaint is not due until September 26, 2019. Continue status conference to November 5, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for November 5, 2019:
A status report is not required when the defendant has not responded to the complaint, and, in any event, counsel should not use Judge Zurzolo's form of
2:00 PM
status report for this judge. Counsel should also be aware that it is inappropriate for an attorney to file a declaration attesting to his personal knowledge of facts that are not within his personal knowledge. Counnsel should have prepared this declaration for his paralegal's signature.
Set deadline for plaintiff to file request for entry of default and motion for entry of default judgment. Continue status conference to coincide with hearing on default judgment motion.
11/6/19 -- Court entered scheduling order setting status conference for February 11, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and setting deadline of January 21, 2020 for defendant to file motion to set aside default.
Tentative Ruling for February 11, 2020:
Continue status conference for approximately 90 days. If defendant fails to file response to complaint within time limit set forth in response to motion on calendar as number 207, plaintiffs should take defendant's default, serve and file a motion for default judgment and set it for hearing at same date and time as continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to July 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than June 30, 2020.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 7, 2020.
Tentative Ruling on July 14, 2020:
This action has been pending for a year, and yet the parties have not yet met and conferred in compliance with LBR 7026-1? Court appreciates that parties may wish to avoid costs associated with discovery, but it is time for this matter to either be resolved or to move forward. Set continued status conference. Require parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference. (There are mediators willing to conduct mediations via Zoom.)
Final Ruling from July 14, 2020:
Defendant did not appear at status conference. Court continued status conference to
2:00 PM
October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and directed parties to file joint status report by October 6, 2020. Plaintiff should file and serve a notice of the continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
Is there any difference between the joint status report filed on October 6, 2020 and that filed on October 7, 2020?
Continue status conference to date that can serve as hearing date on motions that plaintiff intends to file.
12/9/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 9, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 19, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 203.
Debtor(s):
David Gomez Represented By
Raj T Wadhwani
Defendant(s):
David Gomez Represented By Warren M Stanton
Plaintiff(s):
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Represented By Michael R Pinkston Maisie C Sokolove Christine S Hwang S Bradley Perkins Thomas E Fraysse Elizabeth Medrano Peter W Saltzman
2:00 PM
Justin T Curley
D Ward Kallstrom
ILWU-PMA WELFARE PLAN Represented By Michael R Pinkston Maisie C Sokolove Christine S Hwang S Bradley Perkins Thomas E Fraysse Elizabeth Medrano Peter W Saltzman Justin T Curley
D Ward Kallstrom
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
11:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
11:00 AM
$100 was due on 12/2/20
$100 due before 1/4/21
$100 due before 2/2/21 fr. 1-13-21
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Debtor has now paid all installments. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED. COURT WILL PREPARE ORDER VACATING OSC.
Debtor(s):
Jeremias O Hernandez Pro Se
Trustee(s):
11:00 AM
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
Docket 56
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
Maria Ana Belen A. Gregorio Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Movant(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
11:00 AM
Docket 173
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant motion. Approve compromise. Trustee should lodge order granting motion. APPEARANCES WAIVED.
Debtor(s):
Youth Policy Institute, Inc. Represented By Kevin Meek
Movant(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Represented By
Keith Patrick Banner Jeffrey A Krieger
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Represented By
11:00 AM
Keith Patrick Banner Jeffrey A Krieger
11:00 AM
fr. 4-15-15, 5-11-16, 11-9-16, 5-24-17, 1-10-18, 7-18-18, 3-20-19
fr. 12-18-19, 3-18-20, 6-3-20, 8-5-20, 10-7-20
Docket 174
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Relief from stay has already been granted to permit the parties to resolve their respective disputes in state court. Continue hearing on claim objection along with case status conferences as parties move forward with state court litigation.
5/9/16 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to November 9, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 11, 2016. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for November 9, 2016:
Continue status conference on objection and case status conference to May 24, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report
11:00 AM
not later than May 15, 2017. Appearances waived on November 9, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for May 24, 2017:
Court did not receive service copy of status report (which was due on May 15, but filed on May 18, 2017). Perhaps that is because it was addressed to the bin outside of Suite 1482, which does not exist anymore. Judge Bluebond is now in Suite 1534.
Counsel for the reorganized debtor states on page 3, at lines 21-22 of the report, "Trial is set for September 11, 2017, the trial is not expected to be continued." Yet attached to the status report is a copy of a stipulation to amend the case management order in which the parties request that the trial date be continued from September 11, 2017 to January 29, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. Perhaps counsel is trying to say that he does not believe the state court will grant the parties' mutual request for a continuance of the trial date?
Court is now confused. When do the parties actually anticipate that trial of the state court action is likely to occur? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for May 24, 2017:
Continue status conference to January 10, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 10, 2018:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to July 18, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 10, 2018.
4/18/18 -- Court approved compromise concerning reduction of $150,000 to Hospital's claim.
Tentative Ruling for July 18, 2018:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue
11:00 AM
status conference to March 20, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 18, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for March 20, 2019:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to December 18, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 20, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 18, 2019:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to March 18, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 18, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for March 18, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to June 3, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than May 26, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 18, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 3, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conferences to August 5, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than July 25, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 3, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conferences to October 7, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than September 25, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 7, 2020:
11:00 AM
Continue case status conference to February 10, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than February 1, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 7, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for February 10, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue hearings to May 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than Apri 30, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Tower General Contractors Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Movant(s):
Tower General Contractors Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
11:00 AM
fr. 7-30-14, 8-20-14, 11-19-14, 1-21-15, 4-15-15, 10-14-15, 4-13-16, 11-9-16,
5-24-17, 1-10-18, 7-18-18, 3-20-19, 12-18-19, 3-18-20, 6-3-20, 8-5-20, 10-7-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/18/14 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued case status conference to August 20, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file status report not later than August 6, 2014. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 30, 2014. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for August 20, 2014:
Debtor has withdrawn its request for authority to use cash collateral. If debtor has no ongoing operations and will not have any employees, should this case be converted to chapter 7? Hearing required.
8/26/14 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- September 1, 2014
Bar date -- November 30, 2014
11:00 AM
Cont'd status conference -- November 19, 2014 at 11:00 L/D to file updated status report -- November 10, 2014
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2014:
Set deadline for filing plan and continue case status conference to date that can serve as hearing on disclosure statement.
11/25/14 -- Court signed order setting following dates:
L/D to file plan and disclosure statement -- December 15, 2014 Hearing on disclosure statement -- January 21, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. Cont'd status conference -- January 21, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 21, 2015:
If court approves disclosure statement, continue status conference to date of confirmation hearing. If court continues hearing on disclosure statement, continue case status conference to same date.
Tentative Ruling for April 15, 2015:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Tentative Ruling for October 14, 2015:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to April 13, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than April 4, 2015.
Tentative Ruling for April 13, 2016:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to November 9, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than October 31, 2016.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for November 9, 2016:
Continue status conference on objection and case status conference to May 24, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than May 15, 2017. Appearances waived on November 9, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for May 24, 2017:
Continue case management conference to same date and time as continued hearing on claim objection.
Final Ruling for May 24, 2017:
Continue status conference to January 10, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than December 22, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for January 10, 2018:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's (belated) status report.
Continue case status conference to July 18, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than July 6, 2018.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 10, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for July 18, 2018:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to March 20, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than March 8, 2018.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 18, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for March 20, 2019:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to December 18, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than December 6, 2019.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 20, 2019.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for December 18, 2019:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to March 18, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than March 4, 2020.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 18, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for March 18, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to June 3, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than May 26, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 18, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 3, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conferences to August 5, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than July 25, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 3, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conferences to October 7, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than September 25, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 7, 2020:
Continue case status conference to February 10, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than February 1, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 7, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for February 10, 2021:
11:00 AM
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue hearings to May 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than Apri 30, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Tower General Contractors Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
11:00 AM
fr. 2-27-19, 6-5-19, 9-4-19, 10-10-19, 11-20-19, 1-8-20, 3-4-20, 3-18-20,
3-26-20, 5-6-20, 7-15-20, 9-16-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Set bar date and deadline for serving notice of bar date. Continue status conference approximately 3 months.
3/4/19 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- March 6, 2019
Bar date -- May 10, 2019
Cont'd status conference -- June 5, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. L/D to file updated status report -- May 24, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for June 5, 2019:
How are the prospects for finding a long term tenant for the property? Has
11:00 AM
anyone expressed interest in possibly renting the property?
Set deadline of approximately four months for the debtor to file a plan of reorganization. If debtor still has not found a long term tenant by then, it may be time for the debtor to re-evaluate its reorganization strategy.
6/10/19 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- September 4, 2019 at 11:00 a.m.
L/D to file updated status report -- August 23, 2019
L/D to file plan and disclosure statement (or case will be converted to chapter 7) -- October 9, 2019
Tentative Ruling for September 4, 2019:
Continue case status conference to October 10, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. Court will convert case to chapter 7 at that time if debtor has not either filed a plan of reorganization and a disclosure statement or a motion for authority to sell the property to a specific buyer by October 9, 2019.
Waive appearances on September 4, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for October 10, 2019:
Debtor filed plan and disclosure statement on October 8, 2019. A hearing on the disclosure statement is set for November 20, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. Continue case status conference to November 20, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with disclosure statement. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 10, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for November 20, 2019:
If court approves disclosure statement, set plan-related deadlines. If court continues hearing, continue case status conference to date of continued hearing on disclosure statement.
11:00 AM
12/13/19 -- Court approved stipulation setting following continued dates:
L/D to file amended plan and disclosure staetment -- January 29, 2020
L/D to file objections to amended plan and disclosure statement -- February 12, 2020
L/D to file response to objections -- February 19, 2020
Hearing on disclosure statement and case status conference -- March 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 8, 2020.
Tenative Ruling for March 26, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for May 6, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for July 15, 2020:
Debtor(s):
Daniel E. Rogosin Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Roksana D. Moradi-Brovia
11:00 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Elizabeth Rogosin Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Roksana D. Moradi-Brovia
11:00 AM
fr. 8-5-20, 8-12-20, 10-7-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Court entered final decree. Case has been closed. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Upgrade Labs Inc., a Delaware Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
fr. 12-17-20
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Why does the Bank of the West payroll account need to remain open?
Debtor needs to stop payment on any outstanding checks issued on accounts that remain open. To the extent that the Court authorizes the payment of prepetition amounts, new checks should be issued.
Merchant accounts should remain open for deposits only. Only disbursements the debtor should make from these accounts is to sweep amounts on deposit (net of any required reserves) to a DIP account.
There is a difference between the debtors' depositing all of their funds into, and paying all of their expenses from, a single concentration account and pooling funds in such a way as to permit receipts generated by one debtor to be used to pay expenses attributable to a different debtor. Absent substantive
11:00 AM
consolidation or an order approving a financing motion as between two or more debtor entities, one debtor's expenses should not be paid from revenues generated by a different debtor.
Subject to the foregoing, provided debtor supplies adequate proof of service, grant motion.
Final Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Court granted motion on interim basis through February 12, 2021. Final hearing set for February 10, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. (See interim order for more information.)
Tentative Ruling for February 10, 2021:
Resolve motion on the following terms to which the debtors and the US Trustee have stipulated:
If the substantive consolidation motion currently set for hearing on February 24, 2021 is denied: (A) the Debtors will wind down their cash management system within 30 days after entry of the order denying the substantive consolidation motion; and (B) the authority to use the Debtors’ Cash Management System should be extended to 30 days after entry of such order.
On or before February 8, 2021, the Debtors will amend the December MOR to include "to/from" accounting. Thereafter, the Debtors will provide "to/from" accounting in all MORs until the first month after the Court enters an order granting substantive consolidation.
The Debtors will continue to maintain its single non-DIP Comerica bank account, to be used solely to pay the Debtors’ credit cards as authorized by the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order. The Debtors will not carry on deposit at any given time more than
$100,000 in the non-DIP Comerica bank account. If the Debtors’ balance on deposit in the non-DIP Comerica account exceeds the FDIC limit of $250,000 at any given time, the Debtors will obtain a surety bond in favor of the United States to collateralize any excess
11:00 AM
over the FDIC limit in an amount no less than 115%, based on the highest average daily balance. The Debtors will close the Prepetition Merchant Accounts and Prepetition Payroll Account, as those terms are defined in the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order, in a manner consistent with the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
fr. 12-17-20
Docket 11
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Court will set a date for a continued hearing now. Debtor should serve notice of the motion and the continued hearing date on utilities by a date set by the Court. Along with that motion should be a notice setting forth the deposits that the debtor intends to make with regard to each utility. Notice should be accompanied by payment of the actual deposits themselves. (Debtor cannot wait 45 days to pay these deposits if it hopes to persuade the court to prohibit termination of service during this 45-day period.) Utilities that do not object by a date certain will be deemed to have agreed to the adequate assurance that the debtor has proposed. If a utility does object, it should be required to specify in writing what it believes the debtor should be required to do in order to provide it with adequate assurance. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue consensually, the debtor should file the utility's request and its response by a
11:00 AM
date certain. Utility should have an opportunity to file a brief on this issue and the Court will resolve the question at the continued hearing. Utility will be precluded from terminating service until the resolution of the dispute.
Final Ruling for December 17, 2020:
See order entered December 18, 2020. Final Hearing set for February 10, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 10, 2021:
Debtors have filed a notice that no utilities objected to their proposed adequate assurance. As there are no objections for this court to resolve, OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
[OST]
Docket 10
Grant motion. Issue OSC why case should not be converted to chapter 7 or dismissed based on lack of counsel for a debtor that cannot appear without counsel. Set hearing on OSC for February 24, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with hearing on creditor's motion to convert. Oppositions to OSC will be due by the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Sinaloence Food Products & Represented By Joanne P. Sanchez
11:00 AM
Docket 325
Trustee is confused. Court did not make a finding that the assets of Olympic Holdings were property of the estate. The court found, among other things, that it was more likely than not that the trustee would eventually prevail on her various theories of recovery as against the LLC's managed/controlled by the debtor. There has been no finding that assets of these entities are property of the estate. The court entered the preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo and the assets of these entities so that the prospect of a recovery would remain if the trustee prevailed in her action. If the trustee wants the protection of the automatic stay, she will need to bring a motion (in an adversary proceeding) under section 105 seeking to have the automatic stay extended/applied to these entities.
Continue hearing on this application to give the trustee an opportunity to bring such a motion.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY fr. 7-14-20, 9-29-20, 11-17-20, 12-15-20
Docket 505
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/16/21 - Mathew Lesnick, (310)396-0964 2/16/21 - James Lewin, (619)465-8200 x 4607
2/16/21 - Ronald Buss, (213)388-7272 (Witness)
Rulings on Movant's Evidentiary Objections:
10:00 AM
(Original) Declaration of Jonathan Goldrich
Overrule objection to lack of qualifications. Declarant identifies himself as a Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser licensed by the State of California. Overrule objection based on fact that declarant didn't view interior of property. Lack of interior inspection goes to weight.
Overrule. Experts may rely on hearsay information. Real estate appraisers never have personal knowledge of rents being charged and must always rely on some one providing that information. (If movant would like to prove that an assumption on which valuation is based is inaccurate, they are free to do that.)
Supplemental Goldrich Declaration
Overrule objection to lack of qualifications. Declarant identifies himself as a Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser licensed by the State of California. Overrule objection based on fact that declarant didn't view interior of property. Lack of interior inspection goes to weight.
Overrule. Experts may rely on hearsay information.
Saber Declaration
Overrule objection as to statement that the original value in schedules does not take into account new appliances. Sustain objection to the balance of the paragraph for lack of foundation, hearsay and best evidence.
Sustain for lack of foundation.
Amaya Declaration
Overrule.
Overrule.
Tentative Ruling on the Merits:
As debtor has not obtained a stay pending appeal, debtor's appeal of the order appointing a trustee and/or the conversion of the case is irrelevant. (Note: Debtor filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal on July
10. The orders debtor has appealed were entered on May 4, 2020. Court
10:00 AM
refused to hear motion on an expedited basis as any emergency was created only by debtor's having waited this long to bring such a motion.)
There is no evidence in the motion to support the contention that movant lacks adequate protection. On what is this assertion based?
With regard to the request for relief under section 362(d)(2), now that the case is in chapter 7, one of the prongs of section 362(d)(2) has been satisfied -- the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization because there will be no reorganization. As to whether or not the debtor has equity in the property, under section 362(g)(1), the movant bears the burden of proof. The lender has relied merely on the value reflected in the debtor's
schedules as the value of the property, which is a valuation that dates back to June of 2018.
Court notes that trustee has not opposed the motion. Does the trustee have a position as to the likely value of the property?
Continue hearing to give movant an opportunity to provide current evidence as to the value of the property. Court will not order adequate protection payments in the interim as there is no evidence that the property is declining in value.
9/23/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to November 17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. See order for additional deadlines. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2020.
11/4/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 15, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. See order for additional deadlines. OFF CALENDAR FOR NOVEMBER 17, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 15, 2020:
Court's order continuing hearing set deadline of December 1 for the debtor to file any supplemental replies and a deadline of December 8 for any further responses from movant. Docket does not reflect any supplemental filings.
What is the status of this matter? Hearing required.
10:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for February 16, 2021:
According to supplemental declaration from movant, as of January 20, 2021 (or February 4, 2021), loan balance, including accrued interest and other charges, was $4,717,368.49. According to Mr. Buss, movant's valuation witness, property value as of August 26, 2020 (the date of inspection) was
$4,750,000.
According to Mr. Buss, with the exception of comparable sale no. 4 (which is a comparable sale used by both), the comparables in the Goldrich appraisal are not comparable because they are recently renovated and, in some instances, are on larger lots. Goldrich appraisal he reports was based only on exterior inspection only and therefore did not take into account interior deferred maintenance, functional deficiencies and lack of modernization.
Subject property, according to Buss, is dated with the extent of some upgrades limited to kitchen area. Interior layout is dated with respect to traffic flow as there are three levels, not the typical two, and extensive stairwells.
There is also a larger lower level workout room that is atypical, has limited buyer appeal and is somewhat a waste of square footage. Entire property has approximately 30 year old wood flooring, with the exception of carpet in bedrooms and tile in bathrooms.
Debtor's appraiser, Jonathan Goldrich, valued property as of May 20, 2020 at
$6,200,000. (Debtor has testified that the property is 5,300 square feet on a 7,500 square foot lot.)
According to the Couirt's trial procedures order entered December 15, 2020, each of the parties was to provide chambers (via email to Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov) as well as opposing counsel with a .pdf of each of its exhibits and a list of all trial participants not later than 5 business days prior to trial. Movant has complied with these directives. Court has not received anything from the debtor. Court assumes therefore that debtor does not intend to offer any exhibits or witnesses at trial and does not intend to appear. Is this correct?
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Samuel Michael Saber Represented By Matthew A Lesnick
Movant(s):
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL Represented By
Theron S Covey James F Lewin
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Elissa Miller
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: IRA SERVICES TRUST COMPANY CFBO, ET AL
Docket 136
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/22/21 - Thomas Mulally, (818)784-8700
Deny. There is a massive equity cushion that exceeds the amount of the debt. However, include in order denying motion language clarifying that communicating with the debtor regarding the prospect of a refinance will not violate the automatic stay.
Debtor(s):
Rebecca Primicias Prudencio Represented By Joseph C Rosenblit
Movant(s):
IRA SERVICES TRUST Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas R Mulally
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: BANC OF CALIFORNIA, NA
Docket 20
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/16/21 - Mark Geragos, (213)625-3900
2/16/21 - Setara Qassim, (213)625-3900
Regdalin bankruptcy case has not yet been dismissed. Court conditionally granted request for dismissal. Once declaration attesting to fact that certain payments have been made has been filed and served, court will enter order dismissing case. In the interim, that case is still active and movant has moved for relief from stay in the wrong bankruptcy case. If, as the motion alleges, the owner of the property is Regdalin Propertiies, LLC, that is the bankruptcy case in which this motion should have been brought.
The bankruptcy case filed by Elina Sargsyan has been dismissed. As court is not inclined to grant any of the forms of extraordinary relief requested by movant, deny motion as moot.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Elina Sargsyan Represented By David A Tilem
Movant(s):
Banc of California, National Represented By
Diana Torres-Brito
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: DAIMLER TRUST
Docket 8
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/19/21 - Jennifer Wang, (714)431-1058
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Arpy Kelian Represented By
Aris Artounians
Movant(s):
Daimler Trust Represented By
Sheryl K Ith
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: PRICELINE.COM
Docket 89
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/22/21 -Jonathan Kim, (310)772-2311
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3). (Movant has lodged proposed form of order. Court need not prepare one.)
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Priceline.com Represented By
10:00 AM
Jeremy V Richards Jonathan J Kim
10:00 AM
MOVANT: UNITED LEASING, INC.
Docket 137
NONE LISTED -
2/8/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
United Leasing, Inc. Represented By Garry A Masterson
10:00 AM
MOVANT: 1ST SOURCE BANK
Docket 163
NONE LISTED -
2/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 2, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
1st Source Bank Represented By Haleh C Naimi
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01695 Gutierrez v. Impresa Aerospace, LLC.
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Continue status conference to date of hearing on OSC re remand.
TAKE OFF CALENDAR IN LIGHT OF TRANSFER OF ACTION.
Defendant(s):
Impresa Aerospace, LLC. Represented By Nicholas S Kanter
Plaintiff(s):
Sandra Gutierrez Represented By Ovsanna Takvoryan
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01695 Gutierrez v. Impresa Aerospace, LLC.
fr. 2-9-21
Docket 14
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Deny motion to transfer venue and issue OSC why action should not be remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1452(b). Transfer of venue under section 1412 requires consideration of the surrounding facts and circumstances to assess whether a transfer would be in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties. While it might be convenient for the defendant/debtor to have this matter transferred to Delaware, that is the only party for whom it would be more convenient.
The only factor that weighs in favor of a transfer to the District of Delaware is that that is where the defendant/debtor's bankruptcy case is pending. All other factors weigh against transferring venue there. All parties, including the debtor, are located in California. All of the class members are in California.
Any percipient witnesses would be located in California. The claims arise
2:00 PM
under California law. The only basis for federal jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. section 1334. The claim arose and was already pending in state court at the time the bankruptcy was filed. It may be possible for parties to appear virtually in Delaware now, but it is far from certain that virtual hearings will remain permissible for more than the next few months or that the Delaware bankruptcy court will permit any evidentiary hearings that may be required to be conducted virtually.
Even if the motion is denied, the Delaware bankruptcy court will retain a sufficient level of control over the future of this action and over debtor's assets. This Court assumes that relief from stay has not (yet) been granted and that, if and when it is, relief from stay will be limited to liquidating the claim and not to executing upon any monetary judgment that may be entered. Claimants will have to file a proof of claim (if they have not already done so) in the bankruptcy case if they would like to participate in any distribution of assets, and the bankruptcy court may permit any objection to that claim to be liquidated in Delaware through the claims objection process, if it so desires.
However, by leaving the underlying action in California (and remanding it to state court), the Delaware court will retain the option to grant relief from stay and permit the parties to liquidate their respective disputes to a final judgment in California state court.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation re withdrawal of opposition and transfer of action to the District of Delaware. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Defendant(s):
Impresa Aerospace, LLC. Represented By Nicholas S Kanter
Plaintiff(s):
Sandra Gutierrez Represented By Ovsanna Takvoryan
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01173 Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Sahni et al
Fr. 8-27-19, 10-1-19, 11-5-19, 12-10-19, 2-25-20, 6-9-20, 7-14-20, 10-20-20,
12-1-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/29/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to August 19, 2019 and continuing status conference to October 1, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 27, 2019.
8/19/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to September 18, 2019 and continuing status conference to November 5, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 1, 2019.
9/17/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant to
2:00 PM
respond to complaint to October 10, 2019.
10/18/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 10, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR NOVEMBER 5, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for February 25, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on motion to dismiss.
4/10/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing defendant's deadline to respond to complaint to June 17, 2020 and continuing status conference to July 14, 2020 at 2:00 pm. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2020:
According to status report, defendant would like to file motion to withdraw reference. What would the basis of such a motion be? Discuss timing of such a motion with parties.
Continue status conference approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to continued status conference.
7/17/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to complete mediation -- October 20, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- August 10, 2020 L/D to file joint status report -- October 6, 2020
8/11/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
At request of the parties, continue status conference to December 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. No new status report required. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
2:00 PM
Did the parties participate in a mediation on October 19, 2020? If so, what was the outcome? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Parties report that matter has been settled. Continue status conference to a date after anticipated hearing date of motion for approval of compromise (or, if motion will be filed using notice and opportunity for hearing procedure, continue status conference to a date that will give the court a sufficient opportunity to process the anticipated motion).
Debtor(s):
Lite Solar Corp. Represented By Leslie A Cohen Stephen A. Weaver
Defendant(s):
Ranbir S Sahni Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Totalis Energy, LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Plaintiff(s):
Brad D. Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Aaron E de Leest Zev Shechtman
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Represented By Eric P Israel Aaron E de Leest Sonia Singh
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01183 DYE v. Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. et al
fr. 8-27-19, 11-19-19, 12-17-19, 2-11-20; 6-30-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
If defendants have filed motion to dismiss, continue status conference to date of hearing on motion as a holding date. If defendants have filed answer to complaint, both parties have indicated a willingness to attend mediation.
Discuss with parties the timing of mediation.
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2019:
Parties report that they have scheduled a mediation for December 2, 2019 with Meredith Jury. Continue status conference to December 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (Parties need not file a new status report prior to that status conference.) APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2019:
Did the parties participate in a mediation before Meredith Jury? If so, was a settlement reached? Hearing required.
12/16/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 11,
2:00 PM
2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 17, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for February 11, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for late July, 2020. Set final status conference for shortly before discovery cutoff.
4/22/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 30, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- June 16, 2020 Discovery cutoff -- July 31, 2020
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2020:
Continue status conference to August 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion for summary judgment. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2020.
6/30/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates: Discovery cutoff -- October 31, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2 L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to exchange expert witness reports/designate experts -- November 16, 2020
L/D to complete expert discovery -- December 1, 2020
8/12/20 -- At hearing held this datre, Court continued status conference and hearing on summary judgment motion to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 201.
10/19/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
2:00 PM
Pretrial conference -- February 23, 2021 @ 2 L/D to copmlete discovery -- November 30, 2020
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- December 31, 2020 L/D to complete expert discovery -- January 31, 2021
L/D to lodge pretrial order -- Feburary 9, 2021 L/D to file pretrial motions -- December 31, 2020
11/18/20 -- Court signed stipulated order with following dates:
L/D to complete depositions of Burgee, Abramoff and Lanius extended to January 15, 2021;
L/D to file pretrial motions extended to January 31, 2021;
L/D for parties to designate experts and exchange expert witness reports extended to February 15, 2021; and
L/D for parties to complete expert witness discovery extended to March 12, 2021.
1/15/21-- Court approved stipulation continuing following dates:
L/D to complete depositions of Burgee and Lanius extended to January 29, 2021;
L/D to file pretrial motions extended to March 1, 2021;
L/D for parties to designate experts and exchange expert witness reports extended to March 15, 2021; and
L/D to complete expert witness discovery extended to April 9, 2021.
In light of the foregoing, court also continued pretrial conference to April 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties shall lodge joint pretrial order not later than April 13, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
Defendant(s):
Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. Represented By
2:00 PM
Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
John Burgee Represented By
Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Robert Abramoff Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By Steven M Berman Stella A Havkin
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01184 DYE v. de Gallegos et al
Christian de Gallegos
fr. 8-27-19, 11-19-19, 12-17-19, 2-11-20, 6-30-20, 9-15-20, 10-20-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Both parties have indicated a willingness to attend mediation. Discuss with parties the timing of mediation.
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2019:
Parties report that they have scheduled a mediation for December 9, 2019 with Meredith Jury. Continue status conference to December 17, 2019 at
2:00 PM
2:00 p.m. (Parties need not file a new status report prior to that status conference.) APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2019:
Did the parties participate in a mediation before Meredith Jury? If so, was a settlement reached? Hearing required.
12/13/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 11, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 17, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for February 11, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for early June, 2020. Set final status conference for shortly before discovery cutoff.
4/22/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 30, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- June 16, 2020 Discovery cutoff -- July 31, 2020
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for late November, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Set final status conference for approximately 90 to 120 days.
6/30/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates: Discovery cutoff -- October 31, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2 L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to exchange expert witness reports/designate experts -- November 16, 2020
L/D to complete expert discovery -- December 1, 2020
8/28/20 -- Court approved compromise between trustee and defendant Max
2:00 PM
Charles Moore III resolving all claims against him. Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Continue status conference to October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with Trustee's motion for partial summary adjudication. Parties need not file new status report for that conference. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
Discuss with parties anticipated dates for filing revised motion for partial summary adjudication. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
There is a court form for an attachment to the status report for additional parties. In the future, trustee should file a single, collective status report using the main form and the attachment for additional defendants.
Court notes that Jeffrey Elliott has demanded a jury trial. Assuming there is a right to a jury trial that has not been waived, this court will nevertheless handle all pretrial proceedings up through and including pretrial conference before the reference is withdrawn and the matter is returned to the district court for trial. Is there a dispute as to whether Mr. Elliott has a right to a jury trial?
Discuss with parties the timing of motion for summary judgment/partial summary adjudication and pretrial conference. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions.
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Christian de Gallegos Represented By Paul A Beck
Jeffrey Norman Elliott Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Max Charles Moore II Represented By Jonathan M. Saffer
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By Steven M Berman
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01170 Farwell v. Herzstock
J. Herzstock
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/19/21 - Zachary Levine, (818)241-7499
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Explain to defendant importance of complying with court's local rules concerning the conduct of adversary proceeding.
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
2:00 PM
Where is status report that should have been filed by November 19, 2019?
Final Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by February 25, 2020. Parties are to complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020 and should lodge an order appointing mediators by December 24, 2019. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order as instructed at prior status conference. Impose additional sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and defendant in pro per for failing to lodge an order appointing mediators and complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020, as directed by the Court. Impose additional sanctions of
$150 on defendant in pro per for failing to participate in preparation of joint status report. Lack of cooperation from defendant does not excuse plaintiff from deadlines established by the Court. These are joint obligations.
Set discovery cutoff for late May, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Order parties AGAIN to conduct mediation. If defendant does not cooperate in selection of mediators, plaintiff should lodge unilateral order appointing mediators. If parties do not complete mediation by new deadline, court will impose additional monetary sanctions of not less than $500. Court does not consider its deadlines to be optional.
3/11/20 -- Court issued scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 16, 2020 at 2:00 pm
Discovery cutoff -- May 31, 2020
L/D to file pretrial motions -- June 15, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- March 23, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- June 16, 2020
Court imposed sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order after last status conference.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
2:00 PM
Impose sanctions of $150 on defendant for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Impose additional $150 in sanctions on defendant for failing to cooperate in the scheduling of mediation. The deadline for filing pretrial motions was June 15, 2020. If defendant has not responded to discovery requests, why hasn't plaintiff filed motion to compel discovery? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report. Court will impose monetary sanctions at that time if parties fail to file joint status report in a timely manner or if mediation has not been completed.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Parties have again failed to file joint status report in a timely manner. Impose monetary sanctions of $150 each on counsel for the parties for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Have the parties completed a day of mediation? If not, impose additional sanctions of $500 each on counsel for the parties and issue OSC why action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
10/5/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
Final Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff of December 30, 2020. Pretrial motions should be filed by February 2, 2021. Parties must lodge proposed pretrial order by February 9, 2021. Schedule pretrial conference for February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order setting forth these dates.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
2:00 PM
Plaintiff has failed to lodge scheduling order as directed. As a result, other deadlines were missed. Where is the joint pretrial order that should have been lodged by February 9, 2021? Impose monetary sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and renew OSC re dismissal for failure to prosecute. Set hearing on OSC for same date and time as continued pretrial conference.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to lodge joint proposed pretrial order not later than March 16, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Represented By
J.D. Cuzzolina
Defendant(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Alec Farwell Represented By
Sarah R Wolk Zachary Levine
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01171 Chasse v. Herzstock
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/19/21 - Zachary Levine, (818)241-7499
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Explain to defendant importance of complying with court's local rules concerning the conduct of adversary proceeding.
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Where is status report that should have been filed by November 19, 2019?
2:00 PM
Final Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by February 25, 2020. Parties are to complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020 and should lodge an order appointing mediators by December 24, 2019. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order as instructed at prior status conference. Impose additional sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and defendant in pro per for failing to lodge an order appointing mediators and complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020, as directed by the Court. Impose additional sanctions of
$150 on defendant in pro per for failing to participate in preparation of joint status report. Lack of cooperation from defendant does not excuse plaintiff from deadlines established by the Court. These are joint obligations.
Set discovery cutoff for late May, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Order parties AGAIN to conduct mediation. If defendant does not cooperate in selection of mediators, plaintiff should lodge unilateral order appointing mediators. If parties do not complete mediation by new deadline, court will impose additional monetary sanctions of not less than $500. Court does not consider its deadlines to be optional.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on defendant for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Impose additional $500 in sanctions on defendant for failing to cooperate in the scheduling of mediation. The deadline for filing pretrial motions was June 15, 2020. If defendant has not responded to discovery requests, why hasn't plaintiff filed motion to compel discovery? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint
2:00 PM
status report. Court will impose monetary sanctions at that time if parties fail to file joint status report in a timely manner or if mediation has not been completed.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Parties have again failed to file joint status report in a timely manner. Impose monetary sanctions of $150 each on counsel for the parties for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Have the parties completed a day of mediation? If not, impose additional sanctions of $500 each on counsel for the parties and issue OSC why action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
10/5/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
Final Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff of December 30, 2020. Pretrial motions should be filed by February 2, 2021. Parties must lodge proposed pretrial order by February 9, 2021. Schedule pretrial conference for February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order setting forth these dates.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Plaintiff has failed to lodge scheduling order as directed. As a result, other deadlines were missed. Where is the joint pretrial order that should have been lodged by February 9, 2021? Impose monetary sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and renew OSC re dismissal for failure to prosecute. Set hearing on OSC for same date and time as continued pretrial conference.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to lodge joint proposed pretrial order not later than March 16, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Represented By
J.D. Cuzzolina
Defendant(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Kyle Chasse Represented By
Sarah R Wolk Zachary Levine
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01242 Cabrera v. Bronson
Bronson
fr. 10-1-19, 11-12-19, 3-17-20; 6-30-20, 10-27-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Set deadline for filing amended complaint and deadline for responding to amended complaint.
10/4/19 -- Court granted motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file and serve amended complaint not later than October 7, 2019. Defendant shall have to and including October 21, 2019 to file and serve a response to amended complaint. If the response is another motion to dismiss, it should be set for hearing on November 12, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. Status conference continued to same date. Requirement that joint status report be filed is waived.
Tentative Ruling for November 12, 2019:
2:00 PM
Set deadline for filing of answer to first and third claims for relief. Set continued status conference date and deadline for filing joint status report. New dates should be in order on motion to dismiss.
Final Ruling for November 12, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 17, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by March 3, 2020. Court set deadline of November 27, 2020 for defendant to file and serve answer to first and third claims for relief. (Second and fourth claims for relief were dismissed with prejudice.)
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to June 30, 2020 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than June 16, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to October 27, 2020 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than October 13, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 30, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 27, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to February 23, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than February 9, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 27, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
At request of parties, continue status conference to June 29, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than June 15, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Bradley M. Bronson Represented By
J. Bennett Friedman Michael D Sobkowiak
Defendant(s):
Bradley M. Bronson Represented By
J. Bennett Friedman Michael D Sobkowiak
Plaintiff(s):
Candido Cabrera Represented By Gregory M Salvato
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By Timothy J Yoo
2:00 PM
fr. 11-6-19, 2-11-20, 3-10-20, 5-5-20, 7-14-20, 10-20-20, 11-10-20
Docket 40
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Deem objections to be an adversary proceeding for procedural purposes and discuss with parties relationship between this proceeding and the pending litigation in LASC. Should that action be removed to bankruptcy court and consolidated with these objections? Should the court grant relief from stay and permit issues to be litigated in state court?
Hearing required.
3/4/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to May 5, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and extending deadline for filing joint status report to April 21, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 10, 2020.
4/21/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to July 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and extending deadline for filing joint status report to June
2:00 PM
30, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2020:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/22/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
L/D to file joint status report -- October 6, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- October 20, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- August 10, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- October 20, 2020 at 2:00 pm
8/10/20 -- Court signed order appointing mediators.
10/5/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to November 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., extending the deadline to complete mediation to October 26, 2020 and moving the deadline to file a joint status report to October 27, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for November 10, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for February of 2021 and final status conference for approximately same time frame. Extend deadline for completion of mediation so that parties can participate in another day of mediation.
11/13/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- February 9, 2021 L/D to conduct discovery -- February 26, 2021 L/D to complete mediation -- February 23, 2021
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Extend discovery cutoff by 60 days. Order the parties to complete a second day of mediation. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions and set pretrial conference.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Alfredo F Torres Represented By Antonio John Ibarra John D Monte
Movant(s):
Alfredo F Torres Represented By Antonio John Ibarra John D Monte
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01121 Pringle v. Cho
fr. 7-21-20, 10-20-20, 12-15-20
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Answer to complaint was due on June 18, 2020. Parties may not simply grant open ended extensions of response deadline without court approval. Set new deadline for defendant to respond to complaint. (Parties may submit written stipulation if they would like to further extend deadline.) Set continued status conference and direct parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/28/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- October 6, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- October 20, 2020
L/D for defendant to file and serve response to Trustee's complaint -- August 24, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediator -- August 10, 2020
8/10/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
L/D to lodge order appointing mediator -- November 10, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- December 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
2:00 PM
L/D to file joint status report -- December 1, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- December 15, 2020 OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
1/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- May 11, 2021 L/D to attend mediation -- May 25, 2021
L/D to serve and file resonse to complaint -- April 30, 2021 OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
11/9/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to lodge order appointing mediator -- January 19, 2021
Cont'd status conference -- February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- February 9, 2020
L/D to complete mediation -- February 23, 2021
L/D to file and serve response to trustee's complaint -- January 19, 2021 L/D to complete mediation -- December 15, 2020
OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 15, 2020.
OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021. STATUS CONFERENCE CONTINUED BY STPULATION TO MAY 25, 2021 AT 2:00 P.M. See
stipulation for additional dates.
Debtor(s):
Ho Young Cho Represented By Kelly K Chang
Defendant(s):
Steve Cho Pro Se
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
John P. Pringle Represented By Toan B Chung
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Toan B Chung
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01177 Bradley, M.D. et al v. Dickens, III
Docket 19
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Counsel for defendant needs to replace the toner in his printer. Defendant's memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion is almost illegible. Court reserves the right to disregard any future pleadings that are filed or served in this condition. (Note: The version filed with the court is equally illegible.)
Deny defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. Grant plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication with regard to first claim for relief. Deny balance of motion as there is a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the balance of the claims as to whether defendant's conduct was willful and malicious and done with either the intent to cause injury (or with knowledge that injury was substantially certain to occur) or whether defendant was merely representing his client in a manner that was reckless as to his professional responsibilities and grossly incompetent. (The fact that the
2:00 PM
available evidence makes it far more likely that plaintiff's interpretation of the relevant events will be accepted by a trier of fact as accurate is not dispositive here. The court should not weigh competing evidence in the context of a motion for summary judgment.)
With regard to the first claim for relief, the state court adopted its tentative ruling as its final ruling. In the tentative ruling, the court specifically found that the declarations drafted by defendant "were false, in bad faith, and solely intended to implicate the litigation privilege despite the fact that the privilege was not available to defendants. The disingenuous nature of the
declarations was revealed during discovery. No reasonable attorney would have submitted declarations which were knowingly false." It is clear from this language that the state court found that defendant knew the declarations were false and purposefully used them with the intention of inflicting harm on the plaintiffs. This is sufficient to support a finding that the sanctions imposed for this conduct ($44,648.66) are necessarily nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6). (Defendant argued extensively that he had not acted in bad faith. The judge agreed to take the matter under submission and to consider further whether to depart from his tentative ruling. After so doing, he issued his ruling, adopting the findings in his tentative ruling.)
Debtor(s):
Harold Winfred Dickens III Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Harold Winfred Dickens III Represented By William T Heywood
Movant(s):
Kenneth S. Bradley, M.D. Represented By Joseph P Fleming
Southern California Pain Represented By Joseph P Fleming
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Kenneth S. Bradley, M.D. Represented By Joseph P Fleming
Southern California Pain Represented By Joseph P Fleming
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01177 Bradley, M.D. et al v. Dickens, III
fr. 10-20-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Set deadline for defendant to file motion for summary judgment/partial summary adjudication. Continue status conference to date of hearing on that motion. Discuss with parties whether mediation would be helpful in this matter and, if so, when.
10/21/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for plaintiff to file motion for summary judgment and defendant to file motion for judgment on pleadings -- January 12, 2021
Deadlines for oppositions and replies shall be as set forth in the Local Rules (Court corrected order lodged by parties to reflect these deadlines)
Hearing on motions and continued status conference -- February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. (Requirement of filing a status report in connection with that
2:00 PM
conference is waived.)
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Do the parties need to conduct any discovery? Set deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of any additional pretrial motions. Schedule pretrial conference and require parties to lodge joint pretrial order not later than two weeks prior to date scheduled for pretrial conference.
Debtor(s):
Harold Winfred Dickens III Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Harold Winfred Dickens III Represented By William T Heywood
Plaintiff(s):
Kenneth S. Bradley, M.D. Represented By Joseph P Fleming
Southern California Pain Represented By Joseph P Fleming
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01103 Nolan v. Spencer
Docket 20
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant in part and deny in part. Court agrees that defendant should provide required disclosures and motion should be granted to the extent that it seeks an order compelling these disclosures, but deny request for either monetary or equitable sanctions. Defendant's disclosures were due on June 22, 2020, but plaintiff did nothing in an effort to obtain these disclosures until January 14, 2021, at which point planitiff demanded that the disclosures be provided four days later. Subsequently, on January 19, 2021, at 9:42 p.m., plaintiff demanded that the disclosures be provided by 10:00 a.m. on the following day. These steps do not constitute a good faith effort to resolve the matter consensually without the need to bring this motion. If defendant fails to provide the required information by the deadline imposed by the court, plaintiff may bring a motion to have defendant held in contempt of the order that the court will enter on this motion.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Defendant(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Movant(s):
Gwendolyn Nolan Represented By
Lane M Nussbaum
Plaintiff(s):
Gwendolyn Nolan Represented By
Lane M Nussbaum
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01103 Nolan v. Spencer
Docket 25
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Deny motion for judgment on the pleadings. Court agrees that the arbitrator's findings are ambiguous and therefore insufficient to support a finding of nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2)(A). (Arbitrator found both that defendant defrauded claimant by having taken $147,000 without complying with his contractual obligation as the architect on the project -- which sounds as if it might support a 523(a)(2)(A) finding -- and that defendant defrauded plaintiff by failing to correct his own errors unless plaintiff gave him an additional $147,000 -- in which event there would not have been fraud in the inducement.) However, nothing precludes the plaintiff from attempting to prove fraud in the inducement on these facts. See Archer v. Warner, 538 U.S. 314 (2003).
NOTE: Complaint alleges that defendant never intended to perform under the contract at the time the contract was made, which, if proven, can support a nondischargeable judgment under section 523(a)(2)(A), but are there any additional facts or misrepresentations upon which plaintiff relied in entering
2:00 PM
into the contract that the plaintiff would like to plead in an amended complaint?
Debtor(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Defendant(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Movant(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Plaintiff(s):
Gwendolyn Nolan Represented By
Lane M Nussbaum
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01103 Nolan v. Spencer
fr. 6-30-20, 10-6-20, 1-12-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/1/20 -- Court signed order setting discovery cutoff of September 30, 2020. Tentative Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Where is joint status report that should have been filed by September 22, 2020? Have parties completed their discovery? Does either party anticipate filing any pretrial motions? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Continue status conference to January 12, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than December 29, 2020.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021:
Sanction counsel for each party $150 for (again) failing to file joint status report in a timely manner. What is the status of this action? Have the parties now completed discovery? If not, are they requesting an extension of the discovery cutoff? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation? If not, why not.
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Parties seem to be somewhat confused as to what was to be filed two weeks before the pretrial conference. A status report is due two weeks before a status conference. A joint pretrial order is due two weeks prior to a pretrial conference. The court scheduled a pretrial conference. The parties should have lodged a joint pretrial order two weeks before the pretrial conference. The court does not need a status report.
Impose sanctions of $250 on counsel for defendant for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint pretrial order.
Does plaintiff want to file an amended complaint? If so, set deadline for this purpose, take pretrial conference off calendar and schedule a status conference. If not, continue pretrial conference to give the parties a further opportunity to prepare a JOINT pretrial order.
Debtor(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Defendant(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Plaintiff(s):
Gwendolyn Nolan Represented By
Lane M Nussbaum
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 10
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Debtor represented that he had taken a prepetition credit counseling course at the time he filed, but has failed to file the certificate evidencing that he in fact completed this course. Debtor has not responded to court's OSC. Dismiss case as debtor is ineligible to be a debtor in bankruptcy if he has not completed this course within the 180 days before filing bankruptcy.
Debtor(s):
Victor Hill Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 4
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Petitioner has not filed response to OSC. Documents attached to petition, which are apparently intended to demonstrate that petitioner holds a claim against the debtor, are legally ineffective to create any kind of claim against the debtor. Moreover, there is only one petitioner and there is no evidence on the docket that the petition has been served.
Dismiss case.
Debtor(s):
Gardena Dental Care Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 17
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Debtor has now filed certificate of credit counseling, but that certificate reflects that counseling occurred post-petition, and debtor has not requested or obtained an exemption from prepetition credit counseling requirement. As debtor did not complete credit counseling within the 180 days before the commencement of the bankruptcy case, debtor is not eligible to be a debtor in this bankruptcy case.
Dismiss case. (Nothing precludes this debtor from refiling, but new filing would be debtor's second bankruptcy case within a year, meaning that automatic stay will terminate within 30 days unless debtor moves for and obtains an extension.)
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
La Tryce Jackson Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 26
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/19/21 - Giovanni Orantes, (213)389-4362
Motion does not contain evidence as to the balance of the first and second voluntary liens, and the amounts oustanding listed in the order are different from the amounts in the motion. The only "proof" offered is debtor's own schedule D. Continue hearing to give movant an opportunity to provide evidence to support contentions as to balance due on voluntary liens.
Debtor(s):
Candido Reyes Sanchez Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Joint Debtor(s):
Aracely Reyes Represented By Giovanni Orantes
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Candido Reyes Sanchez Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Aracely Reyes Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 52
1/26/21 - Amended Motion filed.
ZoomGov Appearance by:
1/21/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 24, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 27, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Hearing was continued by stipulation in light of service issues. Amended motion was reserved on creditor and creditor's attorney, but was not served on Judge Bluebond or on the address on the abstract of judgment attached to the motion. Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Samvel Gukasyan Represented By
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Armen Shaghzo
Samvel Gukasyan Represented By Armen Shaghzo
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 14
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/17/21 - Richard Brownstein, (818)929-9555 2/22/21 - Ronald Richards, (310)555-1001 2/22/21 - Daniel Lev, (213)617-5231
Court agrees that, in two prior bankruptcy filings, debtor showed no willingness or ability to comply with the requirements necessary to properly prosecute a bankruptcy case and that this case got off to a shaky start as well. However, this time around, debtor has hired counsel who has handled chapter 11 bankruptcy cases before and may intend to conduct itself differently. It is too soon for this court to conclude that this chapter 11 case is doomed or that the debtor will fail to fulfill its responsibilities in this case. The proof will be "in the pudding," so to speak. Continue hearing on motion for approximately 90 days to see whether the debtor intends to prosecute this chapter 11 case diligently.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Sinaloence Food Products & Represented By Joanne P. Sanchez
Movant(s):
Monroe Family Trust Dated Represented By
Vanessa M Haberbush
Shane Family Trust Dated December Represented By
Vanessa M Haberbush
Ravi Financial, a Wyoming Limited Represented By
Vanessa M Haberbush
10:00 AM
Docket 26
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Rulings on Evidentiary Objections:
Weinberg Declaration Overrule general objections.
Richards Declaration
Overrule objection that there are errors in testimony. This is not a basis for objection. Sustain hearsay objection. Overrule balance of objections.
Tentative Ruling on the Merits
Deny motion. Neither debtor is a single asset real estate debtor. There is no authority for the proposition that related debtors should be treated as a single entity for the purpose of analyzing whether they own single asset real estate. In fact, the weight of authority is to the contrary. See In re Meruelo Maddux Properties, Inc., 667 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2012). The debtors have not been substantively consolidated, Their cases are only jointly administered, and the
10:00 AM
idea that multiple adjacent properties may be considered as a single project for the purpose of applying the definition of single asset real estate refers to multiple parcels of property owned by a single debtor, not multiple parcels owned by separate debtors.
Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 101(51B), in order for property to be "single asset real estate," the debtor must not be a family farmer and all of the following must be true:
the debtor must own a single piece of real property or a single project
other than residential real property with fewer than 4 residential units
which generates substantially all of the gross income of the debtor
on which no substantial business is being conducted by a debtor other than the business of operating the real property and activities incidental thereto.
No one contends that either debtor is a farmer. Lydda owns four parcels of real property and Coldwater owns two. The debtors have no income, but if they ever have any income, it will be generated by these properties; and the debtors are not conducting any business other than trying to develop these properties, so, if the debtors can be said to be conducting business at all, it is business incidental to operating the properties.
The issue, therefore, is whether the property owned by each debtor should be characterized as "residential real property with fewer than 4 residential units." Clearly, as to each debtor, there are fewer than 4 units on the property as there are NO residential units on any of the parcels, but are the properties residential real property? Movant seeks to rely on the proposition that Congress did not mean to exclude undeveloped land from the definition of single asset real estate, but all of the cases that have characterized undeveloped real property as single asset real estate are projects that, once developed, would qualify as single asset real estate. They were either commercial projects or multi-unit residential developments that had four or more units.
Here, all of the parcels in question are zoned only for single family residences. The debtors' game plan is to build single family residences. If
10:00 AM
the project were completed, it would be excluded from the definition of single asset real estate, provided each debtor builds no more than three houses.
This property, even in its current form, is residential property, not commercial property. Nothing commercial could be built there, not even four unit apartment buildings. The absence of a building on the property doesn't transform a property into commercial property. If the debtor's only asset is a single piece of property that has a single family dwelling on it or one that can never have anything other than a single family dwelling on it, the debtor cannot qualify as a single asset real estate debtor within the meaning of bankruptcy code section 101(51B) unless it builds or intends to build more than three houses on its property.
As each debtor's assets must be analyzed separately, and Coldwater owns only two parcels, even if Coldwater were to build a home on each parcel, rather than one house on the two parcels combined, its property would be excluded from the definition of single asset real estate because TWO is less than FOUR.
Lydda owns four parcels. If it were to build four or more residences on this property, as the properties are contiguous and could be considered a single project, Lydda would be excluded from the definition of a single asset real estate debtor, but the only admissible evidence reflects that Lydda intends to build, and will only be allowed to build, two residences on its property.
Therefore, even if the Court considers what the parcels will become, rather than what they are now, Lydda would not fall within the definition of a single asset real estate debtor.
Debtor(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut Annie Y Stoops
Lydda Lud, LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian Annie Y Stoops
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Give Back LLC Represented By Daniel A Lev
11:00 AM
Authorizing Chapter 7 Trustee to Abandon Real Property Located at 911 Loma Vista Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Per 11 U.S.C. Section 554
Authorizing Chapter 7 Trustee to Abandon Pending Adversary Proceeding Case No. 2:20-ap-01623-BB Per 11 U.S.C. Section 554
Reconsidering the Enforcement Order Entered January 13, 2021 as to the Trustee
[OST]
fr. 1-27-21
Docket 207
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/19/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931 2/19/21 - Rommy Shy
2/19/21 - Barry Shy
2/22/21 - Thomas Casey, (949)766-8787
11:00 AM
2/22/21 - Joshua Scheer, (949)263-8757
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
The motion is silent as to the trustee's intentions with regard to the personal property located within the debtor's residence. Does the trustee seek authority to abandon that as well? Is the Court correct in understanding paragraph 34 of the Donald Fife's declaration to mean that, after payment of sales taxes, closing costs and the debtor's exemption, the personal property would produce (if the sale were to proceed) net proceeds of $90,000?
The motion seeks authority to abandon the debtor's adversary proceeding against BOBS as well as the underlying real property. The nature of this litigation is such that the estate could not retain this litigation if it abandons the underlying real property, but court would like additional information concerning the representation made in the motion that the lawsuit is unlikely to produce sufficient value to enable the estate to pay the $2.56 million in estimated capital gains taxes. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to have the lender's claim treated as wholly unsecured due to problems with the documentation. Is the trustee persuaded that the estate is unlikely to prevail on this claim?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Trustee does not intend to abandon personal property. Court-ordered purchaser is willing to give the trustee more time to more fully analyze the capital gains taxes that would result from the sale, and the trustee is willing to explore whether there might be another alternative that would involve a compromise with BOBS. With consent of the parties, continue hearing to February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give the trustee more time to evaluate tax liability and explore prospect of a compromise.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
11:00 AM
What, if any, progress has been made since the January 27 hearing? Hearing required.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00
a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
[OST]
fr. 1-27-21
Docket 215
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/19/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931 2/19/21 - Rommy Shy
2/19/21 - Barry Shy
2/22/21 - Thomas Casey, (949)766-8787
2/22/21 - Joshua Scheer, (949)263-8757
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Court must resolve matter no. 6 first. If Court grants trustee's motion,
11:00 AM
reconsiders the sale order and authorizes the trustee to abandon the property, court cannot enter an order compelling the debtor to transfer the property. Once abandonment occurs, the property is no longer an asset of the bankruptcy estate and is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. (See, e.g., In re Grossinger's Assocs., 184 B.R. 429 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995) and cases cited therein.)
Although Court could hold the debtor in civil contempt for violating an order of this court, even after the underlying real property has been abandoned, movant has not requested that remedy in this motion, and that will not work in any event. If the Court grants the trustee's motion to reconsider and vacate the order that compels the debtor and/or the trustee to execute the sale documents in light of the newly-discovered tax liability, there will no longer be an order that compels the debtor to sign these documents.
Once the property is abandoned, movant can bring an action in state court for breach of contract and seek the remedy of specific performance, but there are at least two problems with this approach (other than the length of time it would take to compel performance). First, if the court reconsiders the order approving the sale as having been improvidently entered, the debtor will no longer be obligated to perform as it will be as if the court did not approve the agreement. Second, once the property has been abandoned, the automatic stay that prevents BOBS from proceeding with its foreclosure will terminate.
Although it may be that BOBS and the debtor will negotiate something that would permit the debtor to retain the property after abandonment, this will not resolve the first problem.
With regard to the movant's request for attorneys' fees, although there may be an exclusion from the mediation requirement, attorneys' fees may only be awarded under the contract to the prevailing party. If the Court vacates its prior order compelling performance of the contract, movant will no longer be the prevailing party in this dispute.
Therefore, it appears that this motion must be denied. If the Court denies the trustee's motion, this motion will be moot (except with regard to the request for attorneys' fees). If the Court grants the trustee's motion, the Court will be without jurisdiction to order the relief that movant seeks.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for January 27, 2021:
With the consent of the parties, continue hearing to January 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
See tentative ruling for matter no. 100. Hearing required.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00
a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
NVSI, INC., its successors and/or Represented By
Joshua L Scheer Timothy J Silverman
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
fr. 11-18-20, 1-12-21
Docket 519
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/22/21 - Barrett Marum, (650)815-2688
Final Ruling from January 12, 2021:
Court rejected claimants' argument that damages arising from the debtor's abandonment of the lease, as represented by the state court judgment, are not capped by 502(b)(6). Judge Neiter calculated the maximum amount of damage for lease termination damages under section 502(b)(6) and this amount will not increase because the state court judgment came out higher. There is nothing to litigate on these issues. Judge Neiter's order capping the damages at $1,066,000 remains the law of the case.
Judge Neiter did not enter an order that was intended to be final on the issue of the extent to which the legal fees should be included within the cap (i.e., the 90/10 split). Give parties an opportunity to conduct discovery before court conducts an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
11:00 AM
State court's decision to make an award of fees and costs jointly and severally in favor of Melrose and Simantob does not make the cap of section 502(b)(6) inapplicable. With regard to both claimants, court will need to determine extent to which fees relate to litigation over lease termination damages (and are therefore within cap) and extent to which fees relate to other disputes (and are therefore not capped).
Court set a discovery cutoff of May 28, 2021 with regard to the attorneys' fees and costs component of the claim.
Court ordered parties to brief whether or not cap of section 502(b)(6) would still apply to the claim if claimant asserts that it was defrauded into entering into the lease and whether the determination made by the state court that claimant's fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitation should be given preclusive effect in this contested matter. Court instructed parties to file simultaneous briefs on these issues not later than February 3, 2021 and instructed them to file reply briefs not later than February 16, 2021. Court set a continued hearing for February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
The fraud claim that Melrose seeks to assert is that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease. Its damage claims therefore remain subject to the 502(b)(6) cap. The additional tort theory of recovery does not change the amount of the damage that may be allowed as against the estate. (See tentative ruling for matter no. 103 as to whether a claim in excess of this amount may be asserted against the debtors on the theory that it is nondischargeable.)
Therefore, the only remaining issues to be resolved in the context of this claim objection are the allocation of attorneys' fees as between the capped and uncapped portion of the claim and the interest accrual calculation (and whether interest can accrue from and after November 21, 2013 on fees that were incurred after this date or whether interest should start to accrue on the later of November 21, 2013 and the date on which the relevant fees were incurred or awarded).
11:00 AM
The portion of the fees attribuable to litigation over lease termination damages is within the cap (and therefore will not be allowed). The portion that is attributable to something other than litigation over the lease termination damages is not within the cap and may therefore be allowed.
Discuss with the parties how to move forward with the resolution of these issues. (Court has already set discovery cutoff of May 28, 2021 with regard to attorneys' fee issues.)
Debtor(s):
Ramesh Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong
Joint Debtor(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong
Movant(s):
Jack Simantob, 8451 Melrose Represented By Dean G Rallis Jr Kyra E Andrassy Lewis R Landau
Trustee(s):
Thomas C Hebrank (TR) Represented By
J. Barrett Marum Robert K Sahyan Aaron J Malo
11:00 AM
Adv#: 2:12-01538 8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad
U.S.C. Sections 523(a)(2)(A) & (B) and 523(a)(6) Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))
fr. 11-18-20, 1-12-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/22/21 - Barrett Marum, (650)815-2688
12/22/20 -- Court approved stipulation confirming that nothing precludes claimants from liquidating the amount of their claim in state court.
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021 (to the extent applicable to adversary proceeding):
The fraud claim that Melrose seeks to assert is that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease. Its damage claims therefore remain subject to the 502(b)(6) cap. If Melrose can demonstrate that it was fraudulently
11:00 AM
induced to enter into the lease (if this claim is not barred by any applicable statute of limitations), the capped claim would become nondischargeable, but the amount of the claim would remain capped to the same extent as its breach of lease claim. The additional tort theory of recovery does not change the amount of the damage. If the capped claim has already been or will be paid in full, there is no need to determine whether or not the claim should be excepted from the discharge.
The court recently approved a stipulation between the parties. Is it their intention to resolve the extent to which a fraud claim is or is not barred by the statute of limitations in state court? Similarly, is it the parties' intention to litigate the malicious prosecution claims in state court?
Final Ruling for January 12, 2021 (insofar as it relates to adversary proceeding):
Before it can determine how to adjudicate this adversary proceeding, court needs to resolve the following issues: (1) whether the cap of 502(b)(6) applies to any nondischargeable liability that the debtors may have for fraud in the inducement; and (2) whether the state court's finding that the plaintiff's fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitations should be given preclusive effect in this adversary proceeding.
Parties are to file simultaneous briefs with regard to these issues not later than February 2, 2021. Reply briefs will be due not later than February 16, 2021. Court will conduct a continued hearing on February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Adversary proceeding was never actually dismissed by Judge Neiter. He merely took the hearing off calendar to permit litigation to proceed in state court as between the parties, anticipating that they would return to bankruptcy court once they had reduced the claims to judgment for a determination as to dischargeability. That never happened, as Judge Neither retired and, there being no further hearings on calendar, the court "closed" the adversary proceeding. It was never dismissed. (This is why Judge Bluebond never
11:00 AM
takes a matter "off calendar" until it has been resolved--so that it will not fall through the cracks.)
This court is bound by the state court's determination as to when the statute of limitations began to run on the plaintiff's fraud claim. According to the state court, the statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff learned that the representations upon which it had relied were untrue, namely on October 22, 2010 when the debtor testified in a deposition that he did not own any property.
This adversary proceeding, including a claim for fraud in the inducement, was filed in a timely manner for nondischargeability purposes on April 2, 2012.
The underlying state law statute of limitations had not run on the fraud claim as of that date. Conversely, in state court, the plaintiff attempted to add a fraud claim for the first time in is motion to amend complaint in August of 2014. The state court found that the three year statute of limitations had run on October 22, 2013. As this adversary proceeding, including the fraud claims, had been filed by then, there is no statute of limitations problem with this action.
The only authority this Court has been able to locate so far on the issue of whether or not the cap of section 502(b)(6) applies with regard to a nondischargeable claim that may be asserted as against the debtors, as distinguished from a claim that may be asserted against the debtors' estate, is a comment in dicta in a concurrence by former bankruptcy judge Bruce Markell. According to Judge Markell, "claims by landlords for fraud in procuring a lease would be limited by § 502(b)(6)'s limitation on landlords' claims against the estate, with amounts in excess of the limitations being valid against the debtor but unnecessary to the administration of the bankruptcy case.” Deitz v. Ford (In re Deitz), 469 B.R. 11, 29 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012).
The rationale behind limiting the amount of a damage claim for breach of lease (ensuring that the landlord's claim does not dwarf the claims of other creditors, entitling the landlord to a disproportionate share of available assets) does not apply in the context of a nondischargeability action as against the debtor, and section 502(b)(6) appears in a section of the code that discusses allowance of claims against the estate, not in section 523 as a limitation on a
11:00 AM
debtor's nondischargeable liability. Moreover, the introductory language of section 523 says that a discharge does not discharge an individual debtor "from any debt," not from liability for any allowed claim. There is nothing in the statutory language to suggest that any of the limitations of section 502 on the claims that may be allowed affect the amount of any debt that may be excepted from discharge under section 523.
Therefore, in the absence of authority to the contrary, this Court is inclined to agree with Judge Markell that the cap of 502(b)(6) should not apply to limit the size of a claim that can be asserted as against the debtors outside of the administration of the bankruptcy case. As a result, even if the entirety of the plaintiff's allowed claims as against the estate are paid in full, this action is not moot in that the debtors have potential exposure for liability in excess of these amounts, provided an appropriate showing can be made under section 523(a).
The state court judgment determines the amount of the lender's damages, but does not have any bearing on whether or not these amounts can be excepted from the discharge. Set discovery cutoff and schedule continued status conference for approximately 90 days. Explore with parties whether this is an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation at this juncture. (Discuss other issues/problems the court has observed with plaitiff's theories of recovery.)
Debtor(s):
Ramesh Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong
Defendant(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By
John-patrick M Fritz David L. Neale
11:00 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong
Plaintiff(s):
8451 Melrose Property, LLC Represented By Jeffrey I Golden Beth Gaschen Kyra E Andrassy
Michael A. Taitelman Lewis R Landau
Trustee(s):
Thomas C Hebrank (TR) Represented By
J. Barrett Marum Robert K Sahyan Aaron J Malo
11:00 AM
fr. 12-17-20, 1-27-21
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/19/21 - John Tedford, (310)277-0077 Listening Only:
Alphamorlai Kebeh (law clerk)
Danielle Gabai (law clerk)
2/22/21 - Evelina Gentry, (213)688-9500 2/22/21 - Catherine Kretzschmar, (954)463-2700
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2020:
11:00 AM
Court is confused. Is this really a cash collateral motion or is the debtor seeking approval for its proposed adequate protection programs in an effort to prevent lendors/lessors from seeking relief from stay with regard to its vehicles on the ground that they lack adequate protection?
In other words, where is the cash collateral? According to the motion and the accompanying declaration, when one of its vehicles is sold, the debtor is required to pay either all of the net proceeds to the lender/lessor or at least the portion of the net proceeds necessary to satisfy the balance due under the lease. (If the net proceeds are insufficient for this purpose, debtor will still owe the balance.) Does the debtor plan to start retaining the net proceeds generated from vehicle sales in violation of the contracts?
Do the relevant agreements make the post-petition rents that the debtor charges for the use of its vehicles proceeds that are subject to the lessor/lendor's security interests? Do any of the lenders have security interests in the payments the debtor receives under its governmental contracts? Does the debtor have other accounts receivable in which the lessors/lenders assert security interests? If not, is there any sense in which the debtor is planning to use cash collateral?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for December 17, 2020:
(See interim order entered December 18, 2020. Court authorized use of cash collateral on interim basis through the close of business on June 29, 2021 in accordance with budget plus a 10 percent variance. Final hearing set for January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Parties must refer to local rules and court manual and serve copies of papers filed on Judge Bluebond. Papers that are not served on the judge will not be considered (unless they are 25 pages or less in length). Papers filed less than two weeks prior to a hearing must be served using an expedited service method (overnight mail, FedEx, etc.)
11:00 AM
First Source Bank complains in part that the proposed adequate protection payments are insufficient to compensate it for the depreciation in the value of the vehicles that form its collateral. This is a cash collateral motion. The court will only adjudicate in this context the extent to which the debtor's proposal does or does not provide adequate protection for the use of a lender's CASH collateral. To the extent that a lender believes the debtor is not providing adequate protection for depreciation in the value of a noncash item of collateral, it is free to bring a motion for relief from stay with regard to that item or category of collateral (or to negotiate other arrangements with the debtor). The grant of this motion will not resolve that issue.
Similarly, if a lessor claims that it holds a true lease of a vehicle and is therefore entitled to payments in accordance with its lease from and after the 60th day of this case, a decision by this court to grant the instant motion would have no affect on such rights. The debtor has not requested and the court is not considering whether to relieve the debtor of any obligation to make such payments.
To the extent that the debtor seeks authority to make adequate protection payments by way of this motion, approval of the motion will not constitute a finding that the proposed adequate payments actually provide adequate protection for the use of anything other than cash collateral.
Court remains concerned that debtor might be required to use cash collateral of one lender to make payments to a different lender if debtor intends to make adequate protection payments to a given lender that exceed the rents generated by that lender's collateral. Is it necessarily the case that this won't occur under the debtor's current proposal?
At the interim hearing, the court was able to determine from budget that any diminution in the cash collateral balances due to the debtors' use of these funds would be more than offset by the cash payments that the debtor would be making during the interim period. Does this remain the case during this period?
Can it be argued that the court should apply equitable principles under
11:00 AM
section 552(b)(1) to treat only a portion of any post-petition rental payments received as proceeds of the lenders' prepetition collateral?
With regard to proceeds generated from sales of vehicles, turning over all net proceeds generated by the sale of the vehicle is, by definition, adequate protection for the lender's interest in these proceeds. But it should be noted that approval of this motion would not constitute authority for the debtor to sell vehicles out of the ordinary course or to depart from contractual obligations with regard to the procedures for selling vehicles. Pursuant to section 363 of the code, debtor can continue to use, sell or lease property in the ordinary course of business. If debtor wants to sell vehicles other than in the ordinary course of business, it will need to bring a motion requesting such relief.
Instant motion is not such a motion. Replacement liens should suffice to provide adequate protection for lenders with an interest in other forms of cash collateral.
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Authorize use of cash collateral through February 26, 2021 on same terms as previously authorized, plus additional terms read into record at time of hearing. Debtor will serve any additional papers not later than February 3, 2021. Oppositions will be due February 10, 2021. Replies will be due February 17, 2021. Final hearing on use of cash collateral set for February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
No additional papers have been filed in connection with continued use of cash collateral and hearing on substantive consolidation has been continued to March 17, 2021. What is the status of this matter? Have all objections been resolved? Hearing required.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
Docket 165
NONE LISTED -
2/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
fr. 2-10-21
Docket 325
NONE LISTED -
Trustee is confused. Court did not make a finding that the assets of Olympic Holdings were property of the estate. The court found, among other things, that it was more likely than not that the trustee would eventually prevail on her various theories of recovery as against the LLC's managed/controlled by the debtor. There has been no finding that assets of these entities are property of the estate. The court entered the preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo and the assets of these entities so that the prospect of a recovery would remain if the trustee prevailed in her action. If the trustee wants the protection of the automatic stay, she will need to bring a motion (in an adversary proceeding) under section 105 seeking to have the automatic stay extended/applied to these entities.
Continue hearing on this application to give the trustee an opportunity to bring such a motion.
2/12/21 -- Court approved stipulated form of order resolving motion. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol
2:00 PM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
11/24/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
L/D to serve bar date notice -- November 23, 2020 Bar date -- December 31, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- December 2, 2020 at 10:00 (no status report required)
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
Set deadline for filing plan of reorganization and continue status conference to date that can serve as date of hearing on disclosure statement.
12/7/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with the following dates:
2:00 PM
Cont'd case status conference -- February 24, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file plan and disclosure statement -- January 6, 2021 Hearing on disclosure statement -- February 24, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Requirement to file status report waived.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Continue case status conference to March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with debtor's disclosure statement. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION
Docket 7
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/1/21 - Sheryl Ith, (714)431-1029
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Silvia Torres Represented By
Steven B Lever
Movant(s):
American Honda Finance Represented By Vincent V Frounjian
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: TD AUTO FINANCE, LLC.
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/1/21 - Sheryl K. Ith, (714)431-1029
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Silvia Torres Represented By
Steven B Lever
Movant(s):
TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: 1ST SOURCE BANK FR. 2-23-21
Docket 163
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 2, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021
2/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
1st Source Bank Represented By Haleh C Naimi
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:16-01294 Diamond, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff v. Flanagan et al
fr. 8-30-16, 10-4-16, 11-29-16, 4-4-17, 4-25-17, 5-9-17, 6-13-17, 8-22-17,
10-3-17, 2-6-18, 2-13-18, 6-5-18, 9-11-18, 10-23-18, 11-27-18, 2-27-19
fr. 6-11-19, 9-17-19, 1-28-20, 4-14-20, 7-21-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20, 12-22-20
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
8/11/16 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to October 4, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for November 29, 2016:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
3/21/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 25, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 4, 2017.
4/24/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 13, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 9, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for June 13, 2017:
2:00 PM
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
8/14/17 -- Court approved stipulation extending certain dates and continuing hearing to October 3, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 22,
2017.
Tentative Ruling for October 3, 2017:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
2/5/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 13, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for February 13, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar. 2/20/18 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 5, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- May 22, 2018 Discovery cutoff -- August 17, 2018
Tentative Ruling for June 5, 2018:
Extend discovery cutoff to March 2019 and order the parties to mediation.
6/11/18 -- Court approved order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- September 11, 2018 at 2:00 pm L/D to serve and file joint status report -- August 28, 2018 L/D to complete discovery -- March 29, 2019
Tentative Ruling for September 11, 2018:
2:00 PM
Continue status conference until early January, 2019. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for November 27, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Tentative Ruling for February 27, 2019:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar. 3/8/19 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 11, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- May 28, 2019 Court will bifurcate issues and try valuation first.
L/D to conduct nonexpert discovery on valuation issues is continued to June 28, 2019
L/D to designate expert witnesses and exchange expert witness reports -- June 28, 2019
L/D to conduct expert witness discovery -- August 19, 2019
3/20/19 -- Court approved stipulation extending time for trustee to respond to request for production of documents and interrogatorires to April 18, 2019 and extending deadline for defendants to file accounting to March 18, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for June 11, 2019:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days and order the parties to complete a day of mediation prior to the date of the continued status conference.
6/21/19 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- September 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- September 3, 2019
2:00 PM
Court will bifurcate issues and try valuation first.
L/D to conduct nonexpert discovery is continued to September 26, 2019 L/D to designate expert witnesses and exchange expert witness reports -- September 26, 2019
L/D to conduct expert witness discovery -- November 18, 2019 L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- July 5, 2019 Deadline to complete mediation -- next status conference
7/1/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for September 17, 2019:
Set new deadlines for exchange of expert witness reports and completion of mediation.
9/26/19 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- January 28, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file updated status report -- January 14, 2020
L/D to complete mediation -- January 28, 2020
L/D to conduct nonexpert fact discovery -- December 30, 2019
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- December 30, 2019 L/D to conduct expert witness discovery -- February 28, 2020
12/30/19 -- Court entered scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- April 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file updated status report -- March 31, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- April 13, 2020
L/D to conduct nonexpert fact discovery -- March 30, 2020
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- March 30, 2020 L/D to conduct expert witness discovery -- May 29, 2020
3/25/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing dates as follows: Cont'd status conference -- July 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file updated status report -- July 7, 2020
2:00 PM
L/D to complete mediation -- July 21, 2020
L/D to conduct nonexpert fact discovery -- June 30, 2020
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- June 30, 2020 L/D to conduct expert witness discovery -- August 29, 2020
Tentative Ruling for July 21, 2020:
Discuss with the parties the status of efforts to settle the matter and possible new dates for certain of the deadlines set forth above.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Where are the parties with regard to settlement? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
It appears that both parties believe an additional day of mediation may be productive (provided defendant's co-counsel attends). Order parties to complete a second day of mediation with the participation of defendants' co- counsel. Extend deadline for completion of discovery and set date/deadlines for pretrial motions and pretrial conference.
Final Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Continue hearing to December 22, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. to permit parties to complete another day of mediation. Waive requirement that status report be filed.
Tentative Ruling for December 22, 2020:
Were the parties successful in resolving the matter at mediation? Hearing required.
2/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Video Symphony Entertraining Inc Represented By
Dean G Rallis Jr
Defendant(s):
Michael Gerard Flanagan Represented By Samuel Price Michael G Flanagan
Michael Gerard Flanagan, as trustee Represented By
Samuel Price
Alice Yick Flanagan, as trustee of Represented By
Samuel Price
Video Symphony, LLC Represented By Samuel Price
Plaintiff(s):
Richard K. Diamond, Chapter 7 Represented By Michael G D'Alba Howard Kollitz Walter K Oetzell
Trustee(s):
Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael G D'Alba Howard Kollitz Sonia Singh
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:16-01480 Diamond, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff v. Flanagan et al
fr. 1-10-17, 4-4-17, 4-25-17, 5-9-17, 6-13-17, 8-22-17, 10-3-17, 2-6-18, 2-13-18,
6-5-18, 9-11-18, 10-23-18, 11-27-18, 2-27-19, 1-28-20, 6-11-19,
9-17-19,4-14-20 7-21-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20, 12-22-20
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
12/22/16 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 4, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. and waiving status report for that conference. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 10, 2017. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
3/21/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 25, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 4, 2017.
HEARING CONTINUED TO MAY 9, 2017 AT 2:00 P.M. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 25, 2017.
4/24/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 13, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 9, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for June 13, 2017:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
2:00 PM
8/14/17 -- Court approved stipulation extending certain dates and continuing hearing to October 3, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 22,
2017.
Tentative Ruling for February 6, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
2/5/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 13, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for February 13, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar. 2/20/18 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 5, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- May 22, 2018 Discovery cutoff -- August 17, 2018
Tentative Ruling for June 2, 2018:
Extend discovery cutoff to March 2019 and continue status conference approximately 90 days.
6/11/18 -- Court approved order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- September 11, 2018 at 2:00 pm L/D to serve and file joint status report -- August 28, 2018 L/D to complete discovery -- March 29, 2019
Tentative Ruling for October 23, 2018:
Continue to trail this action along with matter on calendar as number 215.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for June 11, 2019:
Continue to trail this action along with matter on calendar as number 200.
6/21/19 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- September 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (Requirement that status report be filed is waived)
L/D to conduct discovery -- November 18, 2019
Tentative Ruling for September 17, 2019:
Do any deadlines need to be extended in this adversary proceeding?
9/26/19 -- Court approved scheduling order vacating discovery cutoff and waiving requirement that status report be filed in connection with January 28, 2020 status conference.
Tentative Ruling for January 28, 2020:
Continue status conference to April 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to coincide with continued status conference in related matter. Parties need not file status report in connection with April status conference. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 28, 2020.
3/31/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to coincide with status conference in related matter. Parties need not file status report in connection with July status conference.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 14, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 21, 2020:
Continue status conference to date of continued status conference for matter no. 200.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
2:00 PM
Let matter continue to trail matter no. 200.
Tentative Ruling for December 22, 2020:
Revisit status after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 2.
2/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Video Symphony Entertraining Inc Represented By
Dean G Rallis Jr
Defendant(s):
Alice Yick Flanagan Represented By Samuel Price
Alice Yick Flanagan, as trustee of Represented By
Samuel Price
Michael Gerard Flanagan Represented By Samuel Price
Michael Gerard Flanagan, as trustee Represented By
Samuel Price
Plaintiff(s):
Richard K. Diamond, Chapter 7 Represented By Michael G D'Alba Howard Kollitz
Trustee(s):
Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael G D'Alba Howard Kollitz Sonia Singh
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:15-01535 Murtagh v. BAKER et al
fr. 12-8-15, 2-9-16, 4-5-16, 5-10-16, 5-24-16, 5-31-16, 9-27-16, 11-15-16,
1-10-17, 3-14-17, 6-13-17, 6-27-17, 7-11-17, 10-31-17, 2-13-18, 3-13-18,
5-8-18, 6-27-18, 8-16-18, 9-27-18, 12-11-18, 1-8-19, 3-12-19, 4-2-19, 6-11-19,
7-30-19, 10-15-19,11-19-19, 12-3-19, 3-31-20, 6-16-20, 7-21-20, 10-27-20,
11-10-20, 12-15-20
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Defendant's counsel should not handwrite documents to be filed with the Court. His writing is illegible.
Continue status conference to May 10, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters that will be on calendar for that date. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for May 31, 2016:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar. 6/2/16 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- September 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- September 13, 2016 Discovery cutoff -- September 30, 2016
L/D to lodge order appointing mediator -- June 17, 2016 Deadline to complete mediation -- September 27, 2016
2:00 PM
7/6/16 -- court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for September 27, 2016:
Plaintiff has filed a notice of inability to prepare joint status report. Where is the declaration required by LBR 7016-1(a)(3) that must be included whenever a party submits a unilateral status report? Why haven't the parties used the mandatory status report form required by LBR 7016-1(a)(2)? When counsel for plaintiff provided a draft status report that did not comply with the Local Bankruptcy Rules, why didn't counsel for the defendant file a unilateral report in compliance with LBR 7016-1(a)(3)?
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for each of the parties. Counsel for the plaintiff is urged to download a current version of the Court's local rules, as he is apparently relying on an outdated version of the rules. He should refer to the Court's website.
As a result, although there is a great deal of alleged information contained in plaintiff's filing, none of it is evidence and it does not address the issues that are supposed to be included in the status report.
Set continued status conference in approximately 30 to 45 days. Parties are to file the required joint status report form not less than two weeks prior to the continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 14, 2017:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no.101.
3/25/17 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- June 13, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- May 30, 2017
L/D to designate experts and exchange reports -- May 15, 2017 L/D to exchange responsive reports -- June 12, 2017
5/26/17 -- Court granted motion to extend June 12 deadline to June 19 and
2:00 PM
continued status conference to June 27, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 13, 2017.
6/12/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 11, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 27, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for July 11, 2017:
Parties were to exchange expert witness reports. They did not need to file them. On May 16, 2017, Court reopened discovery for a period of 60 days from that date to permit the parties to conduct additional discovery related to the website www.baddocjjm.com. Are the parties on track to complete that discovery by July 15?
Set deadline for the completion of expert discovery. Has all other discovery been completed?
Set pretrial conference and deadline for lodging joint pretrial order. Discuss with parties form of proposed pretrial order.
8/15/17 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to complete expert discovery -- September 15, 2017
Cont'd status conference -- October 31, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- October 17, 2017
Tentative Ruling for October 31, 2017:
In light of court's rulings in related matters, when does plaintiff anticipate that he will be ready for trial.
2/6/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 13, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for March 13, 2018:
Continue status conference to March 20, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard
2:00 PM
concurrently with motion on calendar for that date and time. Where is status report that should have been filed two weeks before status conference?
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 13, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for June 27, 2018:
Continue status conference to date of hearing on OSC (August 16, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.)
Tentative Ruling for August 16, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on OSC.
Tentative Ruling for September 27, 2018:
Continue status conference to a date after neutral expert should have filed his initial status report.
Tentative Ruling for December 11, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
12/10/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to January 8, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 11, 2018. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for January 8, 2019:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
3/6/19 -- Court continued hearing to April 2, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters on calendar for that date and time.
Tentative Ruling for April 2, 2019:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matters on
2:00 PM
calendar.
Tentative Ruling for June 11, 2019:
For reasons set forth in tentative ruling for matter no. 7, strike Baker's answer to complaint and enter judgment for plaintiff and take status conference off calendar. Plaintiff should lodge proposed form of judgment.
Final Ruling for June 11, 2019:
Court held that it would be more appropriate for plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment once Baker's answer has been stricken than for the court to grant summary judgment summarily. Court extended deadline for plaintiff to file motion for default judgment to December 2, 2019.
What is the status of this matter? What progress has been made with regard to the turnover of records from the neutral expert to the plaintiff? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2019:
What is the status of this matter? What progress has been made with regard to the turnover of records from the neutral expert to the plaintiff?
11/18/19 -- At plaintiff's request, Court continued status conference to December 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters set for hearing at that date and time. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to date that can be used for hearing on motion for default judgment (which must be filed by March 20, 2020).
Final Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 31, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff should
2:00 PM
file and serve a unilateral status report not later than March 17, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 31, 2020:
Where is the status report that plaintiff should have filed by March 17? Why hasn't counsel for plaintiff filed stipulation with Mr. Broom or lodged order resolving motion for turnover? Hearing required.
Status report filed on March 27, 2020. Court received copy on March 30, 2020. It now appears that plaintiff has abandoned any attempts to obtain information from Mr. Broom and plans to file yet another motion that he believes will enable him to maintain the information that he desires. Has that motion been filed and, if so, when is it set for hearing? Court still needs the order that plaintiff was to lodge in connection with turnover motion. Court will not want to rule on that motion until it has memorialized in an order its prior ruling on the latest turnover motion.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar. Discuss with parties plaintiff's request for a further extension of deadline to file motion for default judgment.
7/2/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting continued status conference for July 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., requiring parties to file joint status report by July 7, 2020 and extending the deadline for plaintiff to file a default judgment motion to July 31, 2020.
Tentatlve Ruling for July 21, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar.
8/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order extending deadline to file default judgment motion to October 30, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 27, 2020:
2:00 PM
Continue status conference to date of hearing on one or more of the motions that plaintiff plans to file.
Tentative Ruling for December 15, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matter.
1/12/21 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference to April 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021.
Debtor(s):
CLARK WARREN BAKER Represented By
Alan F Broidy - DISBARRED - Baruch C Cohen
Defendant(s):
CLARK WARREN BAKER Represented By Jessica Ponce
Plaintiff(s):
James Murtagh Represented By David P Bleistein Lisa Hiraide Douglas M Neistat Michael J Conway Derek Linke Derek A Newman
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Represented By Carolyn A Dye
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01625 Blixseth v. Blixseth
Complaint by Timothy L Blixseth against Edra D Blixseth fr. 12-1-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Defendant's responses to joint status report are useless. Defendant needs to give substantive responses to questions. In the future, court will treat responses such as those provided by defendant as tantamount to a failure to participate in the preparation of a joint status report.
Why don't the parties want this matter sent to mediation? Set discovery cutoff for late March, 2021 and final status conference for approximately same time frame.
Final Ruling for December 1, 2020:
2:00 PM
Continue status conference to March 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report by February 16, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 2, 2021:
Set discovery cutoff for late May, 2021 and continue status conference to approximately same time frame.
Debtor(s):
Edra D Blixseth Represented By James R Selth
Defendant(s):
Edra D Blixseth Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Timothy L Blixseth Represented By
SAMUEL A. SCHWARTZ
Eben Kurtzman
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01177 Acra Machinery, Inc., a California corporation et v. Avakian
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20, 1-5-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Continue status conference for approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
12/27/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Final Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report not later than February 25, 2020. Parties should lodge an order appointing mediators not later than December 24, 2020 and should complete a day of mediation not later than March 10, 2020. Plaintiff should
2:00 PM
lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order. Impose sanctions of $150 each on counsel for parties for failing to file joint status report in a timely manner.
Did the parties complete a day of mediation as previously ordered by the Court? If not, why not?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/7/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
7/10/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- July 7, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- September 15, 2020
Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Why didn't the parties complete mediation by the deadline that the court established for this purpose? Hearing required.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to complete mediation to October 5, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
2:00 PM
What is the status of this matter? Did the parties in fact participate in a mediation by the deadline established by the court for this purpose? Hearing required.
11/3/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- January 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- December 22, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- December 21, 2020
12/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to February 21, 2021
Status conference continued to March 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to January 19, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 5, 2021
2/19/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to March 22, 2021
Status conference continued to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to March 16, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021
Debtor(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Defendant(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Plaintiff(s):
ACRA SEIKI, Inc., a California Represented By Marshall L Brubacher
2:00 PM
Matthew D. Resnik
Acra Machinery, Inc., a California Represented By
Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 182
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant motion. Approve compromise. Waive appearances. Trustee is authorized to upload order consistent with tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
Video Symphony Entertraining Inc Represented By
Dean G Rallis Jr
Movant(s):
Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael G D'Alba Howard Kollitz Sonia Singh
Trustee(s):
Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By
10:00 AM
Michael G D'Alba Howard Kollitz Sonia Singh
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Set deadline for serving notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
10/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 7, 2020
Bar date -- December 7, 2020
L/D to file updated status report -- December 28, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by December 28, 2020? Hearing required.
10:00 AM
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has received status report filed December 29, 2020. Other than submitting to a 2004 examination and serving a notice of bar date, what if any steps toward reorganization have been accomplished since the last status conference and what has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to propose a plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with hearing on creditor's motion to dismiss or in the alternative relief from stay. Waive requirement that new status report be filed for this continued conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 3, 2021:
Creditor noticed hearing on motion to dismiss or in the alternative for relief from stay for March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m Continue case status conference to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with that hearing. No new status report required. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 3, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
On February 24, 2021, Court continued hearing on creditor's motion to convert case to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Continue case status conference to same date and time -- April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file and serve updated status report (which may be included as part of its opposition to motion to convert) not later than April 14, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAVIED ON MARCH 3, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Sinaloence Food Products & Represented By Michael Jay Berger
10:00 AM
Docket 29
2/24/21 -- Court approved stipulation re withdrawal of US Trustee's objection. Parties would like matter taken off calendar.
Court will grant motion without need for hearing. Movant should lodge order granting motion so matter can be taken off calendar.
Debtor(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut Annie Y Stoops Dylan J Yamamoto
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/1/21 - Ronald Richards, (310)555-1001 3/1/21 - Daniel Lev, (213)617-5231
3/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168 3/2/21 - Aram Ordubegian, (213)629-7410
Set deadline for debtor to file notice of bar date and bar date. If debtors are able to arrange for refinancing for their properties, would this case remain in chapter 11 or do the debtors anticipate being in a position to move to dismiss these cases? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut
10:00 AM
Annie Y Stoops
11:00 AM
fr. 10-2-19, 1-15-20, 4-15-20, 6-17-20, 7-15-20, 8-5-20, 8-12-20, 9-30-20,
10-21-20,
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
9/16/19 -- Court approved stipulation between US Trustee and debtor concerning the appointment of a patient care ombudsman.
9/16/19 -- Court approved order setting bar date of November 30, 2019 and directing debtor to serve notice of bar date by September 30, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for October 2, 2019:
Continue case status conference approximately 90 days. Court will set deadline for filing plan at continued status conference.
Final Ruling for October 2, 2019:
11:00 AM
Continue case status conference to January 15, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than January 3, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for January 15, 2020:
Status report was filed belatedly on January 12, 2020. Has debtor filed the valuation motions referenced in the status report? When/how does the debtor anticipate resolving the issues concerning Gentle Care Transport, Inc.
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for April 15, 2020:
Where is the status report that the Court directed the debtor to file by April 3, 2020?
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on U.S. Trustee's motion to dismiss or convert.
Tentative Ruling for June 17, 2020:
Set continued status conference for approximately 90 days. Order trustee to file updated status report prior to continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for July 15, 2020:
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Continue case status conference to August 5, 2020 at 2:00 pm to be heard concurrently with continued hearing on disclosure statement.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Continue case status conference to date of continued hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for August 12, 2020:
Continue case status conference to date of confirmation hearing.
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
If court confirms plan, set post confirmation status conference. If court continues confirmation hearing, continue case status conference to date of continued confirmation hearing.
Tentative Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Parties were able to resolve objections concerning the form of the confirmation order. OFF CALENDAR. COURT SET POST- CONFIRMATION STATUS CONFERENCE FOR MARCH 3, 2021 AT 11:00 A.M.
Tentative Ruling for March 3, 2021:
Where is the post-confirmation status report that should have been filed by February 19, 2021? (The confirmation order scheduled this status conference and set a February 19, 2021 deadline for filing the first post- confirmation status report.) Hearing required.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
MedCoast Medservice Inc. Represented By Henry D Paloci
Trustee(s):
David Keith Gottlieb (TR) Represented By Ron Bender
Krikor J Meshefejian
2:00 PM
Docket 23
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Lesly Lorena Tojin-Hernandez Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: US BANK, NA fr. 9-15-20, 10-6-20, 1-5-21
Docket 22
ZoomGov Appearance by:
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 6, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Deny motion without prejudice. There is amply equity in the property to provide movant with adequate protection and there is equity in the property from the debtor's perspective.
Final Ruling for October 6, 2020:
10:00 AM
Continue hearing to January 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to permit sale to move forward.
Tentative Ruling for January 5, 2021:
Trustee employed real estate broker in late October. What, if any, progress has been made toward a sale of the property? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for March 9, 2021:
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
Christopher Gordon Fields Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Movant(s):
U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By Diane Weifenbach
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: NISSAN-INFINITI LT.
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/8/21 - Kirsten Martinez, (925)660-9895
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Diandra Aquino Represented By Steven B Lever
Movant(s):
NISSAN-INFINITI LT. Represented By Austin P Nagel
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: TOYOTA LEASE TRUST
Docket 8
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/8/21 - Kirsten Martinez, (925)660-9895
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) (and without prejudice to debtor's rights under section 365(p)).
Debtor(s):
Simon Jon Sigua Represented By David H Chung
Movant(s):
Toyota Lease Trust, as serviced by Represented By
Austin P Nagel
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
Docket 13
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/8/21 - Kirsten Martinez, (925)660-9895
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Bianca M Grande Pro Se
Movant(s):
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT Represented By Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION
Docket 7
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Javier Olimpico Arias Jr. Represented By Frank J Alvarado
Movant(s):
Golden 1 Credit Union Represented By Nicholas S Couchot
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VIN# 2T3YFREV1HW353672
MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
Docket 10
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/8/21 - Kirsten Martinez, (925)660-9895
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Terence Talusig Cruz Represented By Steven A Alpert
Joint Debtor(s):
Trevor John Cruz-Hughes Represented By Steven A Alpert
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT Represented By Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: PHILLIP ZOTTI
Docket 22
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Proof of service reflects service on the court, the U.S. Trustee and the chapter 7 trustee. Service is fine.
Movant has an unlawful detainer judgment. That is more than sufficient to give movant standing to seek relief from stay. This court cannot and will not act as a court of appeal for state court. State court judgment is entitled to preclusive effect.
Grant motion with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
La Tryce Jackson Pro Se
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
PHILLIP ZOTTI Represented By Helen G Long
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. DBA GM FINANCIAL
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/8/21 - Sheryl Ith, (714)431-1029
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Daniel H. Aponte Represented By Laleh Ensafi
Movant(s):
AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. Represented By
Sheryl K Ith
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: TOORAK CAPITAL PARNTERS, LLC.
Docket 60
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/8/21 - Tanya Behnam, (310)556-6763
Court is not persuaded that there is a lack of adequate protection: the property is insured and there is no reason to believe that it is declining in value. Thus, relief from stay does not appear available under section 362(d) (1). With regard to section 362(d)(2), this is a chapter 11 case. Therefore, even if the debtor lacks equity in the property, relief from stay should not be granted if the property is necessary to an effective reorganization, which requires, among other things, that there be a reasonable prospect of reorganization within a reasonable period.
Movant claims that the debtor's plan cannot be confirmed over its objection and that it will object to the debtor's plan. Debtor has filed a plan and disclosure statement and that disclosure statement is set for hearing on
10:00 AM
March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. It would be more appropriate for the Court to analyze whether there is a reasonable prospect of reorganization within a reasonable period once the Court has had an opportunity to consider the debtor's disclosure statement and plan. Therefore, continue hearing on motion for relief from stay to March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to coincide with hearing on disclosure statement.
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
Movant(s):
Toorak Capital Partners, LLC Represented By Tanya Behnam
10:00 AM
MOVANT: CRUZ NOE BECERRA, JUANA BECERRA, CRUZ ALBERTO BECERRA AND DANIEL BECERRA
Docket 231
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/3/21 - Eric S. Bershatski, (818) 962-4884
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) with following language added to paragraph 11 of the order:
The sole and exclusive right and remedy of Movants regarding the enforcement against the Debtor of Movants’ claims (including any award or judgment obtained against the Debtor, the Debtor’s estate and/or any trustee) shall be limited to recovery and payment from any available insurance policy, proceeds or coverage available from any insurer of the Debtor (the “Insurance Proceeds”). By agreement of the parties, upon this order becoming final, Movants are deemed to have waived their rights to file proofs of claim against the Debtor or its estate in this chapter 11 case, or any subsequent chapter 7 case, for any amounts not satisfied by the Insurance Proceeds.
10:00 AM
The provisions of Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code prohibiting execution, enforcement, or collection of any judgment which may be obtained by the Movants against any and all assets or property of the Debtor’s estate other than from the applicable insurance policy shall remain in full force and effect, and (i) neither Movants nor any of their agents, attorneys, employees or other representatives or any person or entity claim by or through the Movants (other than any insurer) shall ever attempt to cause any action whatsoever to be taken to collect any portion of any such judgment from the assets or properties of the Debtor’s estate other than from any Insurance Proceeds; and (ii) the Movants hereby waive and release any right to recover from the assets or property of the Debtor and its estate other than from Insurance Proceeds.
Nothing herein is intended or shall be deemed to be a stipulation, agreement, warranty or admission by the Debtor or its estate that: (i) the Debtor or its estate is liable to the Movants for any amounts at all; and (ii) any claims, causes of action, and damages asserted in the Action are covered in whole, in part, or at all, under an applicable insurance policy.
In the event that Movants obtain a judgment against the Debtor in the Action, Movants are authorized to take any necessary actions to collect such judgment from the Debtor’s Insurance Proceeds only.
This Court shall retain jurisdiction over any and all matters arising from or related to the implementation or interpretation of this Order.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Cruz Noe Becerra, Juana Becerra, Represented By
Eric S Bershatski
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01179 Discovery Estates, LLC v. NJR Three Properties LLC et al
Docket 32
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/8/21 - Timothy Silverman, (619)990-1128
Court granted motion for leave to withdraw by plaintiff's counsel on February 8, 2021. Docket does not reflect the appearance of new counsel for plaintiff. Dismiss action, as plaintiff cannot proceed without counsel.
Debtor(s):
Discovery Estates, LLC Represented By Brandon J Anand
Defendant(s):
NJR Three Properties LLC Represented By Frederick J Hickman Timothy J Silverman
2:00 PM
Mark A Cilani Represented By Frederick J Hickman
Mark E Reynolds Represented By Frederick J Hickman
Trimark Funding, Inc. Represented By Frederick J Hickman
Kori L Walters Represented By Frederick J Hickman
DOES 1-20 Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Discovery Estates, LLC Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01179 Discovery Estates, LLC v. NJR Three Properties LLC et al
fr. 10-20-20, 12-15-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/8/21 - Timothy Silverman, (619)990-1128
9/16/20 -- At hearing held this date on UST's motion to dismiss underlying case (which was granted), court instructed parties to dispense with joint status report and, instead, to file 2 weeks before the status conference simultaneous briefs on whether or not this court can or should retain jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding notwithstanding dismissal of the underlying case.
Replies may be filed one week prior to the hearing. Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
2:00 PM
Sixth and Seventh Claims for relief are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. It would be inappropriate for state court to be the arbiter of the extent to which the defendant can enforce the "in rem" order granted in the Murillo case. Rulings made in the context of a hearing on a motion for relief from stay or to impose the stay are analogous to provisional remedies. Court will retain jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding at this point solely for the purpose of resolving the sixth and seventh claims for relief, which the Court will bifurcate from remaining issues and adjudicate first. There is no factual overlap between these issues and the remaining claims asserted by the complaint. Once these claims have been resolved, court will dismiss remainder of the action.
Set deadline for the parties to conduct any necessary discovery and schedule pretrial conference.
Final Ruling for October 20, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for December 31, 2020. Continue status conference to December 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by December 1, 2020. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for December 15, 2020:
Where is scheduling order that plaintiff should have lodged after last status conference? Are parties on track to complete discovery (on 6th and 7th claims for relief) by December 31, 2020? If not, why not? Hearing required.
12/21/20 -- Court approved scheduling order extending discovery cutoff to January 31, 2021.
2/8/21 -- Court granted motion of counsel for debtor to withdraw.
Tentative Ruling for March 9, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 200.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Discovery Estates, LLC Represented By Brandon J Anand
Defendant(s):
NJR Three Properties LLC Represented By Frederick J Hickman Timothy J Silverman
Mark A Cilani Represented By Frederick J Hickman
Mark E Reynolds Represented By Frederick J Hickman
Trimark Funding, Inc. Represented By Frederick J Hickman
Kori L Walters Represented By Frederick J Hickman
DOES 1-20 Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Discovery Estates, LLC Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for January 14, 2021:
(Interest rate 22.59 percent) Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 14, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 10, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to see if debtor can trade in or refinance.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
What, if anything, has transpired since the last hearing? How would the debtor like to proceed? Hearing required.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Robert Renderos Represented By Peter M Lively
Movant(s):
Harley-Davidson Credit Corp Represented By Mukta Suri
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
[Presumption of Undue Hardship]
Docket 10
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Roberto C Urias Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 188
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant motion. Allow administrative priority claim for $50,259.26 for services rendered by CRO. Waive appearances. Movant is authorized to upload order consistent with tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
Creditors Specialty Service, Inc. Represented By Neil C Evans
Movant(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By David Seror
Jessica L Bagdanov
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By David Seror
Jessica L Bagdanov
10:00 AM
Docket 16
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/5/21 - Steve Berman, (813) 227-2332
3/8/21 - Alan Tippie, (213)626-2311 3/8/21 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311
3/8/21 - Damian Capozzola, (213)448-2709 3/8/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779 3/9/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
3/9/21 - K. Todd Curry, (619)238-0004
3/9/21 - Steven Berman, (813)227-2332 3/9/21 - Leonard Shulman, (949)340-3400
10:00 AM
3/9/21 - A. Maria Plumtree, (562)594-3911 3/9/21 - Debra Riley, (619)233-1155 3/10/21 - Caroline Djang, (949)263-6586 3/10/21 - Daniel Weintraub, (310)207-1494 3/10/21 - James Selth, (310)207-1494
3/10/21 - Elliot Lander, (760)668-0879 3/10/21 - Laurence Berman, (424)465-9070 3/10/21 - Patrick McGarrigle, (818)998-3300 3/10/21 - Lauren Rubin, (310)448-6046
3/10/21 - Brian Harnik, (760)861-7542
3/10/21 - Sean O'Keefe, (949)334-4135
Rulings on Evidentiary Objections
Objection to Lavian Declaration
Overrule.
Overrule.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Overrule.
Sustain. Either lack of foundation (if he is just reporting on what occurred in the litigation) or hearsay (if this is being offered for the truth of the matter
10:00 AM
asserted).
Overrule.
Sustain. Lack of personal knolwedge/hearsay.
Sustain. Hearsay.
Susain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Overrule. (Court understands this as lender's opinion/belief/position.)
Overrule. (Court understands this as testimony of what lender has been told, not the truth of the matter asserted.)
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Leslie Declaration
Overrule.
Overrule.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Overrule.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Stiffleman Declaration (Original declaration)
Sustain. Lack of foundation/personal knowledge.
Overrule as to first half of sentence. Sustain as to phrase, "I have learned that Rubin's 'investments' were not of his own money" for lack of foundation/personal knowledge.
Overrule.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Overrule as to statement about Joseph's incompetence. Sustain as to balance based on lack of foundation/personal knowledge.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
10:00 AM
Tippe Declaration Overrule.
Tentative Ruling on the Merits
Grant motion. Appoint trustee. Court will not make a final adjudication in this context as to the underlying merits of the claims advanced against the debtor's principals for diversion of assets, mismanagement and co-mingling. It is sufficient at this juncture that there are MANY MANY causes for concern as to the manner in which the project was handled and the manner in which the principals of the debtor interacted with the receiver and withheld information and records from the receiver and other investors. There is a vague reference in the principals oposition that a CRO might be brought in, but there are no details provided and no assurance that the principals will not continue their involvement in some capacity. Debtor's prior conduct demonstrates that debtor's principals cannot be relied upon to administer the debtor's assets in a transparent manner for the benefit of creditors rather than in their own interests.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey
Movant(s):
U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III- Represented By
Marsha A Houston Christopher O Rivas
10:00 AM
Docket 42
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/5/21 - Steve Berman, (813) 227-2332
3/8/21 - Alan Tippie, (213)626-2311 3/8/21 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311
3/8/21 - Damian Capozzola, (213)448-2709 3/8/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779 3/9/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168 3/9/21 - Steven Berman, (813)227-2332 3/9/21 - Leonard Shulman, (949)340-3400 3/9/21 - A. Maria Plumtree, (562)594-3911
10:00 AM
3/9/21 - Debra Riley, (619)233-1155 3/10/21 - Caroline Djang, (949)263-6586 3/10/21 - Daniel Weintraub, (310)207-1494 3/10/21 - James Selth, (310)207-1494
3/10/21 - Elliot Lander, (760)668-0879 3/10/21 - Laurence Berman, (424)465-9070 3/10/21 - Patrick McGarrigle, (818)998-3300 3/10/21 - Lauren Rubin, (310)448-6046
3/10/21 - Brian Harnik, (760)861-7542
3/10/21 - Sean O'Keefe, (949)334-4135
It is not the case that appointment of a trustee moots this motion. Debtor only owns a portion of the title to the affected real property as a tenant in common. There are three other owners who are not in bankruptcy. The receiver was not appointed for the debtor. The receiver was appointed to take charge of the property. It makes no sense to have the receiver controlling three of the undivided interests in the property and the debtor's trustee controlling the other. If there are concerns about the choice of Mr. Leslie as the receiver, the court will grant relief from stay to permit the trustee that the court will appoint in response to the motion on calendar as number 4 to litigate those concerns on behalf of the debtor, should he or she elect to do so.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III- Represented By
Marsha A Houston Christopher O Rivas
11:00 AM
MOVANT: BOBS, LLC.
fr. 8-4-20, 9-30-20, 12-2-20, 1-6-21
Docket 80
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Grant motion to disqualify Rommy Shy as an expert witness. He may be qualified to perform an appraisal of the property, but he has not demonstrated that with the information contained in his declaration. With regard to the second argument advanced in the motion to strike -- that he should be disqualified because of his economic stake in the outcome -- the court recognizes that there is a difference between hiring a supposedly independent expert and then compensating that expert on a contingency basis and letting a party in interest who has the requisite expertise offer expert testimony. Court would not necessarily exclude testimony in the latter
11:00 AM
instance, but the existence of incentive and bias would certainly cause the court to take the incentives of the declarant into consideration in weighing the validity/accuracy of the testimony.
In light of the foregoing, the only admissible evidence currently in the record as to the value of the property is that supplied by the debtor -- an appraisal showing the value of the property at $26 million. There is no evidence that the property is declining in value, so, at present, the movant has not established that it is entitled to relief from stay under either section 362(d)(1) for lack of adequate protection or under section 362(d)(2).
However, as the court has previously explained, particularly in light of the limited resources that the debtor has to maintain the property pending the consummation of a sale, the property needs to be sold promptly. And the court will have an opportunity in connection with the sale process to determine whether the debtor's valuation is accurate. Toward this end, the Court entered a scheduling order on June 23, 2020, directing the debtor to file a motion to approve a sale of the property not later than September 25, 2020. (An order approving real estate brokers was entered on July 28, 2020.)
Based on this record, if the Court were to rule on the motion now, it would deny the motion without prejudice, but, if movant would prefer, court will continue hearing for approximately 60 to 90 days to see whether the debtor moves forward promptly with a sale of the property or whether relief from stay should be granted to prevent the debtor from further delaying this process. (See tentative ruling for matter number 7 for court's tentative ruling with regard to contention that relief from stay should be granted because case was filed in bad faith.)
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to September 30, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. No new briefing required or permitted.
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
If debtor files nonfrivolous motion to sell property by September 25, 2020,
11:00 AM
continue hearing to date of hearing on motion for authority to sell property. (Motion to conduct auction with release price at or near debtor's appraised value for the property will not suffice.) If debtor fails to file nonfrivolous motion for authority to sell by deadline established by the court for this purpose, grant motion.
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
If court grants sale motion, deny motion for relief from stay.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to give trustee appointed an opportunity to ascertain whether the sale should be consummated or whether relief from stay should be granted.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
Continue to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters on calendar at that time.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
BOBS LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
fr. 8-4-20, 9-30-20, 12-2-20, 1-6-21
Docket 81
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
The Court has been closely monitoring the debtor's progress with regard to a sale of the property in this case and will continue to do so. This case was filed on February 12, 2020 and, within approximately a month, reality changed dramatically. Debtor may be excused for the fact that vigorous marketing efforts did not begin and yield fruit immediately; however, the Court's patience and understanding is limited. At some point in the very near future, the Court will begin to share the movant's frustration with the pace at which the debtor has marketed this property and will reach the conclusion that the debtor is indeed trying simply to retain his luxury lifestyle at no cost for as long as possible.
At this point, the Court is not yet ready to conclude that the case was filed in
11:00 AM
bad faith, but the proof will be "in the pudding." Continue hearing 60 to 90 days to see whether the debtor complies with the deadline that the court has established for the filing of a motion to sell the property.
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to September 30, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. No new briefing required or permitted.
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
If debtor files nonfrivolous motion to sell property by September 25, 2020, continue hearing to date of hearing on motion for authority to sell property. (Motion to conduct auction with release price at or near debtor's appraised value for the property will not suffice.) If debtor fails to file nonfrivolous motion for authority to sell by deadline established by the court for this purpose, revisit motion after conclusion of hearing on court's order to show cause.
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
Revisit motion after conclusion of hearing on sale motion.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Deny motion. If trustee concludes that a sale of the property cannot be consummated in a manner that would produce a benefit for the estate, trustee can abandon property or court can grant relief from stay. Dismissal of case is unnecessary and would not be in the best interest of any party other than movant.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
Continue to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters on calendar at that time.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
BOBS LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
When will debtor be able to resolve corporate status issues? Will the parties need to engage in discovery as to whether the debtor is generally paying its debts as they become due? Is there a dispute as to the number of creditors?
Hearing required.
2/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 31, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 10, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rogue Apparel Group Inc. Represented By
Anthony J Rothman Esq
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/9/21 - Joseph Jeffrey, (949)757-1600 3/9/21 - Michael Breslauer, (619)238-4804
Tentative Ruling for April 29, 2020:
Set deadline for service of notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference approximately 90 to 120 days. Set deadline for filing updated status report.
4/29/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to mail notice of bar date -- May 15, 2020
Bar date -- July 10, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- August 5, 2020 at 11:00
11:00 AM
L/D to file updated status report -- July 24, 2020
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Were the proofs of claim filed in line with the debtor's expectations or did anything surprising get filed? What does the debtor anticipate that its plan will look like?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Continue case status conference to October 21, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than October 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Set deadline for filing sale motion and deadline for filing plan of reorganization.
10/23/20 -- Court entered scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for debtor to file sale motion -- November 25, 2020 Hearing on sale motion -- December 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Continued status conference -- December 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.
Requirement of updated status report is waived unless no hearing on sale motion is conducted at same time as status conference, in which event status report should be filed by December 4, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 16, 2020:
Although Court reserves the right to dismiss a case at a status conference in the order setting the initial status conference, court is concerned that a sua sponte dismissal would not provide sufficient notice to parties in interest. Continue case status conference to date that can serve as the date of a hearing on a motion to dismiss that the debtor should file.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
11:00 AM
Continue status conference to May 26, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. (to see if debtor has filed motion for approval of sale procedures by that date). Debtor should file updated status report by May 14, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 10, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rancho Cielo Estates, LTD Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/5/21 - Kyra Andrassy, (714) 445-1017 3/9/21 - Eryk Escobar, (210)934-4168
12/23/20 -- Court approved order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- January 11, 2021
Bar date -- April 9, 2021
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Has broker had an opportunity to assess value of property? Does broker believe that property can be sold for an amount in excess of the secured claims? Hearing required.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
There is no plan on file. Debtor reports that he will start making monthly payments to secured creditors on March 9, 2021. Has this occurred?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
1369 Londonderry Estate, LLC Represented By Todd L Turoci
2:00 PM
Docket 319
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/8/21 - Raymond Aver, (310)571-3511
3/8/21 - Bruce Landau, (310)838-1365
3/8/21 - Gary Weis, (661)367-3033
3/9/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
3/9/21 - Jared Ullman, (561)338-3535 3/9/21 - Christopher Rivas, (213)457-8019
See tentative ruling for matter no. 201.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
2:00 PM
Movant(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver Raymond H. Aver
2:00 PM
Docket 318
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/8/21 - Raymond Aver, (310)571-3511
3/8/21 - Bruce Landau, (310)838-1365
3/8/21 - Gary Weis, (661)367-3033
3/9/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
3/9/21 - Jared Ullman, (561)338-3535 3/9/21 - Christopher Rivas, (213)457-8019
Court has a number of questions and concerns with regard to the form of the plan and disclosure statement that will be discussed on the record at the time of hearing.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
2:00 PM
Docket 1
3/8/21 - Raymond Aver, (310)571-3511ZoomGov meeting number: 160 964 9430 Password: 517509
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/8/21 - Raymond Aver, (310)571-3511
3/8/21 - Bruce Landau, (310)838-1365
3/8/21 - Gary Weis, (661)367-3033
3/9/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
3/9/21 - Jared Ullman, (561)338-3535 3/9/21 - Christopher Rivas, (213)457-8019
Continue case status conference to July 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with status conference in Pouladian adversary proceeding. Debtor need not file new case status report in connection with July 14 case status conference.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 3, 2020.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2020:
How are the debtor's operations? Has the debtor been meeting its projections? May 26 status report referred to efforts by the debtor to obtain DIP financing and represented that debtor anticipated filing one or more financing motions by June 25. This hasn't happened. What is the status of debtor's efforts to obtain financing?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for July 14, 2020:
Continue status conference to September 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (Court changed this to 11:00 a.m.) Debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than September 4, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for September 16, 2020:
Continue case status conference to date that can serve as date of hearing on disclosure statement.
Final Ruling for September 16, 2020:
Continue case status conference to January 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Disclosure statement may be heard at same time if debtor files plan and disclosure statement sufficiently in advance of that date to comply with applicable rules. Status report waived if court is conducting hearing on disclosure statement concurrently with status conference.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Continue status conference to date that can serve as date of hearing on disclosure statement if debtor files plan and disclosure statement by February 1, 2021 -- March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Debtor need not file updated status report for that status conference. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 27, 2021.
Tentative Ruilng for March 10, 2021:
2:00 PM
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
11:00 AM
fr. 1-8-20, 4-29-20, 9-2-20, 1-6-21
Docket 369
Ruling from January 8, 2020:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue hearing to April 29, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. to give trustee an opportunity to complete her administration of the estate. If case has not been closed by then, trustee should file updated status report by April 22, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 8, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 29, 2020:
Docket does not reflect any filings since last hearing. When will trustee be in a position to close this case? Hearing required.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for September 2, 2020:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue hearing to January 6, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give trustee an opportunity to complete her administration of the estate. If case has not been closed by then, trustee should file updated status report by December 30, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
What is the status of this matter? Did the trustee file the updated status report due December 30, 2020? Has the trustee filed her amended final report? Hearing required.
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue status conference to March 16, 2021 at 2:00 11:00 a.m. If case has not been closed by then, trustee should file updated status report not later than March 5, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 6, 2021.
OFF CALENDAR. CASE HAS BEEN CLOSED.
Debtor(s):
Daniel Louis Reece Represented By James A Hayes Jr James R Selth
Joint Debtor(s):
Kimberly Ann Reece Represented By James A Hayes Jr James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Diane C Weil (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01623 Moshkovich v. Bobs, LLC et al
Docket 19
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
On January 27, 2021, court continued hearing on trustee's motion to abandon to February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Continue hearing on motion to dismiss and status conference to March 16, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties need not file updated status report for that status conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 16, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with trustee's motion to abandon the action.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Bobs, LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Movant(s):
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Plaintiff(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01623 Moshkovich v. Bobs, LLC et al
fr. 11-17-20, 2-2-21
Docket 1
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar.
12/2/20 -- Court entered order on motion to dismiss denying motion as to all claims other than 6th claim for relief (fraudulent transfer) and 7th claim for relief (elder abuse). The motion is granted with leave to amend as to 6th claim for relief and granted without leave to amend as to 7th claim for relief. Amended complaint must be filed by December 18, 2020. Defendant must respond to amended complaint by January 8, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
On January 27, 2021, court continued hearing on trustee's motion to abandon to February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Continue hearing on motion to dismiss and status conference to March 16, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties need not file
2:00 PM
updated status report for that status conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 16, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with trustee's motion to abandon the action.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Defendant(s):
Bobs, LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Plaintiff(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
fr. 1-14-21
Docket 8
ZoomGov Appearance by: 3/9/21 - Jennifer Thomas
Tentative ruling for January 14, 2021:
Coversheet is blank. Part D is blank. What is the interest rate? How much are the payments? Deny approval as agreement is incomplete. Court does not have the information that it requires to approve agreement.
Final Ruling for January 14, 2021:
Debtor is behind on payments but does want to catch up. Continue hearing to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
10:00 AM
Is debtor now current on payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Jennifer D Thomas Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 9
Tentative Ruling for January 14, 2021:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 14, 2021:
Debtor is behind on payments but does want to catch up. Continue hearing to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Is debtor now current on payments? Hearing required.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Julien Calvario Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 50
3/16/21 - Sharon Tang, (714)202-7880
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marina Drabkin Represented By Elena Steers
Movant(s):
Marina Drabkin Represented By Elena Steers Elena Steers Elena Steers
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 395
3/17/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
Court agrees with trustee that approval of the proposed compromise is in the best interests of the estate, even if the estate is administratively insolvent.
Overrule objection and approve compromise.
Debtor(s):
Lite Solar Corp. Represented By Leslie A Cohen Stephen A. Weaver
Movant(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Represented By Eric P Israel Aaron E de Leest Sonia Singh
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Represented By Eric P Israel Aaron E de Leest Sonia Singh
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:19-01173 Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Sahni et al
fr. 8-27-19, 10-1-19, 11-5-19, 12-10-19, 2-25-20, 6-9-20, 7-14-20, 10-20-20,
12-1-20, 2-23-21
Docket 1
3/17/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
7/29/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to August 19, 2019 and continuing status conference to October 1, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 27, 2019.
8/19/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to September 18, 2019 and continuing status conference to November 5, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 1, 2019.
9/17/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant to respond to complaint to October 10, 2019.
10:00 AM
10/18/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 10, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR NOVEMBER 5, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for February 25, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on motion to dismiss.
4/10/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing defendant's deadline to respond to complaint to June 17, 2020 and continuing status conference to July 14, 2020 at 2:00 pm. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2020:
According to status report, defendant would like to file motion to withdraw reference. What would the basis of such a motion be? Discuss timing of such a motion with parties.
Continue status conference approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to continued status conference.
7/17/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to complete mediation -- October 20, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- August 10, 2020 L/D to file joint status report -- October 6, 2020
8/11/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
At request of the parties, continue status conference to December 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. No new status report required. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
10:00 AM
Did the parties participate in a mediation on October 19, 2020? If so, what was the outcome? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Parties report that matter has been settled. Continue status conference to a date after anticipated hearing date of motion for approval of compromise (or, if motion will be filed using notice and opportunity for hearing procedure, continue status conference to a date that will give the court a sufficient opportunity to process the anticipated motion).
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on motion for approval of compromise.
Debtor(s):
Lite Solar Corp. Represented By Leslie A Cohen Stephen A. Weaver
Defendant(s):
Ranbir S Sahni Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Totalis Energy, LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Plaintiff(s):
Brad D. Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Aaron E de Leest Zev Shechtman
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Represented By Eric P Israel
10:00 AM
Aaron E de Leest Sonia Singh
10:00 AM
Docket 56
Grant motion. Waive appearances. Trustee is authorized to upload order consistent with tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
Eunho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang
Movant(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By
10:00 AM
Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
10:00 AM
Sale Agreement Of Real Estate Property [5320 Ellenwood Drive, Los Angeles, California 90041] Free And Clear Of Liens And Encumbrances Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 363
Finding Of Good Faith Sale
Overbidding Process
(Iv) Distribution Of Sale Proceeds
Docket 89
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/15/21 - Keith S. Dobbins, (818) 348-3442 3/15/21 - Rosendo Gonzalez, (213) 452-0070
3/15/21 - Carolyn A. Dye, (213) 368- 5000
3/16/21 - Luisa Rengifo, (310)968-7832 3/16/21 - Wayman Chang
10:00 AM
3/16/21 - Erick Garcia
Grant motion. Approve sale to highest bidder; however, overbidding increment on a purchase price of $1,825,000 should be $5,000, rather than
$1,000.
Debtor(s):
Kyle Henry Walkenhorst Represented By Michael E Clark
Movant(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Rosendo Gonzalez
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Rosendo Gonzalez
10:00 AM
fr. 12-16-20
Docket 37
12/7/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 16, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Court is confused. The basis for the motion to dismiss appears to be movant's belief that it would have been able to file an adversary proceeding to bar debtor's discharge based on false oaths (under section 727(a)(4)) had it done so in a timely manner or that it holds a claim that is excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(7). But movant did not bring an action objecting to the debtor's discharge in a timely manner and it is now too late to do so. And why does the existence of a nondischargeable debt mean that this case should be dismissed? Where is the cause for dismissal? If the debtor failed to disclose assets in her schedules and actually still owns any of
10:00 AM
these undisclosed assets (which she denies), the trustee can pursue them. Why would dismissal of the case on these facts be in the best interest of creditors?
Deny motion.
3/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Jeannette Yvette Martello Pro Se
Movant(s):
California Department of Managed Represented By
Heather Messenger
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:00 AM
Docket 10
3/17/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
Grant in part. Grant motion to the extent that it seeks dismissal with a 2-year bar to refiling based on debtor's demonstrated unwillingness to diligently prosecute a bankruptcy case. Grant motion to the extent that it seeks a finding that no automatic stay arose upon the commencement of the case due to the fact that it is the third bankruptcy case pending within the year; however, to the extent that the movant wants in rem relief pursuant to section 362(d)(4), movant will need to bring a motion using the court's mandatory forms for relief under this section.
Debtor(s):
Wichit Chantharath Pro Se
Movant(s):
Harvey Schonbrun Represented By Leslie A Cohen
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 404
3/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 31, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
MedCoast Medservice Inc. Represented By Henry D Paloci
Movant(s):
MedCoast Medservice Inc. Represented By Henry D Paloci
Trustee(s):
David Keith Gottlieb (TR) Represented By Ron Bender
Krikor J Meshefejian
10:00 AM
Dismissing Bankruptcy Case Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B)(1), or, in the Alternative,
Granting Relief from the Automatic Stay
Docket 82
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/11/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 3/16/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 3/16/21 - Abraham Assil (listening only) 3/16/21 - George Eshaghian (listening only) 3/17/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
Continue hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with hearing on debtor's disclosure statement. The court will have a better opportunity to examine whether the debtor is acting in good faith and
10:00 AM
proceeding diligently with a reorganization of its affairs in the context of evaluating its proposed plan and disclosure statement. No new briefing on this motion will be permitted. Additional briefing as to whether there is a reasonable likelihood of reorganization within a reasonable period should come in the context of the hearing on the debtor's disclosure statement.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/11/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 3/16/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 3/16/21 - Abraham Assil (listening only) 3/16/21 - George Eshaghian (listening only) 3/17/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
Set deadline for serving notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
10/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
10:00 AM
L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 7, 2020 Bar date -- December 7, 2020
L/D to file updated status report -- December 28, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by December 28, 2020? Hearing required.
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has received status report filed December 29, 2020. Other than submitting to a 2004 examination and serving a notice of bar date, what if any steps toward reorganization have been accomplished since the last status conference and what has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to propose a plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with hearing on creditor's motion to dismiss or in the alternative relief from stay. Waive requirement that new status report be filed for this continued conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 3, 2021:
Creditor noticed hearing on motion to dismiss or in the alternative for relief from stay for March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m Continue case status conference to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with that hearing. No new status report required. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 3, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Continue case status conference to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to approve debtor's disclosure statement.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
Authorizing Chapter 7 Trustee to Abandon Real Property Located at 911 Loma Vista Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Per 11 U.S.C. Section 554
Authorizing Chapter 7 Trustee to Abandon Pending Adversary Proceeding Case No. 2:20-ap-01623-BB Per 11 U.S.C. Section 554
Reconsidering the Enforcement Order Entered January 13, 2021 as to the Trustee
[OST]
fr. 1-27-21, 2-24-21
Docket 207
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
The motion is silent as to the trustee's intentions with regard to the personal property located within the debtor's residence. Does the trustee seek authority to abandon that as well? Is the Court correct in understanding paragraph 34 of the Donald Fife's declaration to mean that, after payment of
11:00 AM
sales taxes, closing costs and the debtor's exemption, the personal property would produce (if the sale were to proceed) net proceeds of $90,000?
The motion seeks authority to abandon the debtor's adversary proceeding against BOBS as well as the underlying real property. The nature of this litigation is such that the estate could not retain this litigation if it abandons the underlying real property, but court would like additional information concerning the representation made in the motion that the lawsuit is unlikely to produce sufficient value to enable the estate to pay the $2.56 million in estimated capital gains taxes. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to have the lender's claim treated as wholly unsecured due to problems with the documentation. Is the trustee persuaded that the estate is unlikely to prevail on this claim?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Trustee does not intend to abandon personal property. Court-ordered purchaser is willing to give the trustee more time to more fully analyze the capital gains taxes that would result from the sale, and the trustee is willing to explore whether there might be another alternative that would involve a compromise with BOBS. With consent of the parties, continue hearing to February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give the trustee more time to evaluate tax liability and explore prospect of a compromise.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
What, if any, progress has been made since the January 27 hearing? Hearing required.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00
a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
3/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00
a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
[OST]
fr. 1-27-21, 2-24-21
Docket 215
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Court must resolve matter no. 6 first. If Court grants trustee's motion, reconsiders the sale order and authorizes the trustee to abandon the property, court cannot enter an order compelling the debtor to transfer the property. Once abandonment occurs, the property is no longer an asset of the bankruptcy estate and is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. (See, e.g., In re Grossinger's Assocs., 184 B.R. 429 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995) and cases cited therein.)
Although Court could hold the debtor in civil contempt for violating an order of this court, even after the underlying real property has been abandoned, movant has not requested that remedy in this motion, and that will not work in any event. If the Court grants the trustee's motion to reconsider and vacate
11:00 AM
the order that compels the debtor and/or the trustee to execute the sale documents in light of the newly-discovered tax liability, there will no longer be an order that compels the debtor to sign these documents.
Once the property is abandoned, movant can bring an action in state court for breach of contract and seek the remedy of specific performance, but there are at least two problems with this approach (other than the length of time it would take to compel performance). First, if the court reconsiders the order approving the sale as having been improvidently entered, the debtor will no longer be obligated to perform as it will be as if the court did not approve the agreement. Second, once the property has been abandoned, the automatic stay that prevents BOBS from proceeding with its foreclosure will terminate.
Although it may be that BOBS and the debtor will negotiate something that would permit the debtor to retain the property after abandonment, this will not resolve the first problem.
With regard to the movant's request for attorneys' fees, although there may be an exclusion from the mediation requirement, attorneys' fees may only be awarded under the contract to the prevailing party. If the Court vacates its prior order compelling performance of the contract, movant will no longer be the prevailing party in this dispute.
Therefore, it appears that this motion must be denied. If the Court denies the trustee's motion, this motion will be moot (except with regard to the request for attorneys' fees). If the Court grants the trustee's motion, the Court will be without jurisdiction to order the relief that movant seeks.
Final Ruling for January 27, 2021:
With the consent of the parties, continue hearing to January 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
See tentative ruling for matter no. 100. Hearing required.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00
11:00 AM
a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
3/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00
a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
NVSI, INC., its successors and/or Represented By
Joshua L Scheer Timothy J Silverman
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
fr. 8-4-20, 9-30-20, 12-2-20, 1-6-21, 3-10-21
Docket 81
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
The Court has been closely monitoring the debtor's progress with regard to a sale of the property in this case and will continue to do so. This case was filed on February 12, 2020 and, within approximately a month, reality changed dramatically. Debtor may be excused for the fact that vigorous marketing efforts did not begin and yield fruit immediately; however, the Court's patience and understanding is limited. At some point in the very near future, the Court will begin to share the movant's frustration with the pace at which the debtor has marketed this property and will reach the conclusion that the debtor is indeed trying simply to retain his luxury lifestyle at no cost for as long as possible.
At this point, the Court is not yet ready to conclude that the case was filed in bad faith, but the proof will be "in the pudding." Continue hearing 60 to 90 days to see whether the debtor complies with the deadline that the court has
11:00 AM
established for the filing of a motion to sell the property.
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to September 30, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. No new briefing required or permitted.
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
If debtor files nonfrivolous motion to sell property by September 25, 2020, continue hearing to date of hearing on motion for authority to sell property. (Motion to conduct auction with release price at or near debtor's appraised value for the property will not suffice.) If debtor fails to file nonfrivolous motion for authority to sell by deadline established by the court for this purpose, revisit motion after conclusion of hearing on court's order to show cause.
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
Revisit motion after conclusion of hearing on sale motion.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Deny motion. If trustee concludes that a sale of the property cannot be consummated in a manner that would produce a benefit for the estate, trustee can abandon property or court can grant relief from stay. Dismissal of case is unnecessary and would not be in the best interest of any party other than movant.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
Continue to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters on calendar at that time.
3/12/21 -- Continue hearing to coincide with other hearings continued pursuant to stipulation to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
BOBS LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
MOVANT: BOBS, LLC.
fr. 8-4-20, 9-30-20, 12-2-20, 1-6-21, 3-10-21
Docket 80
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Grant motion to disqualify Rommy Shy as an expert witness. He may be qualified to perform an appraisal of the property, but he has not demonstrated that with the information contained in his declaration. With regard to the second argument advanced in the motion to strike -- that he should be disqualified because of his economic stake in the outcome -- the court recognizes that there is a difference between hiring a supposedly independent expert and then compensating that expert on a contingency basis and letting a party in interest who has the requisite expertise offer expert testimony. Court would not necessarily exclude testimony in the latter instance, but the existence of incentive and bias would certainly cause the court to take the incentives of the declarant into consideration in weighing the
11:00 AM
validity/accuracy of the testimony.
In light of the foregoing, the only admissible evidence currently in the record as to the value of the property is that supplied by the debtor -- an appraisal showing the value of the property at $26 million. There is no evidence that the property is declining in value, so, at present, the movant has not established that it is entitled to relief from stay under either section 362(d)(1) for lack of adequate protection or under section 362(d)(2).
However, as the court has previously explained, particularly in light of the limited resources that the debtor has to maintain the property pending the consummation of a sale, the property needs to be sold promptly. And the court will have an opportunity in connection with the sale process to determine whether the debtor's valuation is accurate. Toward this end, the Court entered a scheduling order on June 23, 2020, directing the debtor to file a motion to approve a sale of the property not later than September 25, 2020. (An order approving real estate brokers was entered on July 28, 2020.)
Based on this record, if the Court were to rule on the motion now, it would deny the motion without prejudice, but, if movant would prefer, court will continue hearing for approximately 60 to 90 days to see whether the debtor moves forward promptly with a sale of the property or whether relief from stay should be granted to prevent the debtor from further delaying this process. (See tentative ruling for matter number 7 for court's tentative ruling with regard to contention that relief from stay should be granted because case was filed in bad faith.)
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to September 30, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. No new briefing required or permitted.
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
If debtor files nonfrivolous motion to sell property by September 25, 2020, continue hearing to date of hearing on motion for authority to sell property. (Motion to conduct auction with release price at or near debtor's appraised
11:00 AM
value for the property will not suffice.) If debtor fails to file nonfrivolous motion for authority to sell by deadline established by the court for this purpose, grant motion.
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
If court grants sale motion, deny motion for relief from stay.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to give trustee appointed an opportunity to ascertain whether the sale should be consummated or whether relief from stay should be granted.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
Continue to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters on calendar at that time.
3/12/21 -- Continue hearing to coincide with other hearings continued pursuant to stipulation to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
BOBS LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
Adv#: 2:20-01623 Moshkovich v. Bobs, LLC et al
Docket 19
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
On January 27, 2021, court continued hearing on trustee's motion to abandon to February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Continue hearing on motion to dismiss and status conference to March 16, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties need not file updated status report for that status conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 16, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with trustee's motion to abandon the action.
3/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Defendant(s):
Bobs, LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Movant(s):
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Plaintiff(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
Adv#: 2:20-01623 Moshkovich v. Bobs, LLC et al
fr. 11-17-20, 2-2-21, 3-16-21
Docket 1
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar.
12/2/20 -- Court entered order on motion to dismiss denying motion as to all claims other than 6th claim for relief (fraudulent transfer) and 7th claim for relief (elder abuse). The motion is granted with leave to amend as to 6th claim for relief and granted without leave to amend as to 7th claim for relief. Amended complaint must be filed by December 18, 2020. Defendant must respond to amended complaint by January 8, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
On January 27, 2021, court continued hearing on trustee's motion to abandon to February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Continue hearing on motion to dismiss and status conference to March 16, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties need not file
11:00 AM
updated status report for that status conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 16, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with trustee's motion to abandon the action.
3/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Defendant(s):
Bobs, LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Plaintiff(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
fr. 8-12-15, 9-24-15, 1-6-16, 2-10-16, 3-16-16, 4-27-16, 9-7-16, 3-8-17,
12-12-17, 6-27-18, 12-12-18, 4-10-19, 10-9-19, 10-16-19, 11-20-19, 1-15-20,
3-11-20, 5-6-20, 8-12-20, 11-18-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/11/21 - Diane Weifenbach, (714)695-6637 3/11/21 - Giovanni Orantes, (213)389-4362
Did debtor ever serve the original order setting status conference? Did debtor ever file the initial status report? If not, why not? Hearing required.
10/1/15 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date --- September 25, 2015
Bar date -- November 30, 2015
11:00 AM
L/D to file plan and disclosure statement -- November 30, 2015 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
Hearing on disclosure statement -- January 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2016:
Continue case status conference to date of continued hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2016:
If Court confirms plan, set post-confirmation status conference and deadline for reorganized debtor to file status report accompanied by declaration.
Tentative Ruling for September 7, 2016:
According to status report, debtor is behind on payments to her professionals but hopes to catch up from a workers compensation award that she expects to receive. Professionals have not agreed to this payment plan, but do they anticipate taking any action in an effort to enforce their claims under the plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for September 7, 2017:
Continue hearing to March 8 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than February 24, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for March 8, 2017:
According to status report, debtor is current on the payments due both secured creditors and unsecured creditors under the plan and is only in default on payments due administrative claimants. Is this correct?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 13, 2017:
11:00 AM
Is debtor now current on all plan payments? Post confirmation status report is not accompanied by a declaration and makes no mention of administrative claimants. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 27, 2018:
Continue hearing to December 12, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file and serve updated status report accompanied by debtor's declaration not later than November 30, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for December 12, 2018:
How much does former counsel claim debtor owes for professional fees? Has debtor made any progress in resolving issues with Wells Fargo? Did debtor succeed in paying November payments to secured creditors and October payments to unsecured creditors? Is debtor now current on payments under the plan?
Tentative Ruling for April 9, 2019:
Has debtor now made any of the March payments due secured creditors or the February and March payments due unsecureds? When are the April payments due? What is the status of debtor's efforts to clarify amounts due Wells Fargo?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for October 16, 2019:
The Court is confused by the entry on the debtor's report fro Wells Fargo (now Fay Servicing). Has the debtor paid the June 2019 payment? Has the debtor paid any of the payments due for August, September and October 2019 for this lender? The Court has the same questions with regard to the two Pennymac (now SN Servicing) unsecured claims.
Final Ruling for October 16, 2019:
11:00 AM
Debtor owes plan payments for June, July, August, September and October. For Wells, she owes these payments plus April and May. Debtor is hoping to refinance, which should take 3 to 4 weeks. Continue case status conference to November 20, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by November 15, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for November 20, 2019:
Reorganized debtor is now saying that it will take another 2 to 3 weeks to arrange financing. Continue case status conference to January 15, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by January 3, 2020.
Debtor has been in default under her plan for an extended period. This cannot continue. Court will convert or dismiss case on January 15 if debtor has not cured arrearages under her plan by then.
Tentative Ruling for January 15, 2020:
According to the reorganized debtor's status report, the replacement loan will fund on January 12 and reorganized debtor will be able to pay off all amounts due unsecured creditors under her plan and cure any delinquencies on her secured claims. Has this occurred? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for March 11, 2020:
Debtor has now obtained financing and cured arrearages under plan. Continue case status conference to May 6, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. to give debtor an opportunity to move for and obtain final decree. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 11, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for May 6, 2020:
Discuss with counsel debtor's game plan for dealing with various plan delinquencies and problems.
Final Ruling for May 6, 2020:
11:00 AM
Continue status conference to August 12, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report by July 31, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 12, 2020:
Continue status conference to November 18, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report by November 6, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 12, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for November 18, 2020:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by March 5, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 18, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to July 28, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by July 16, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Ida Mae Woods Represented By Giovanni Orantes Luis A Solorzano
11:00 AM
fr. 8-8-18, 9-11-18, 10-9-18, 10-4-18, 2-13-19, 2-27-19, 4-30-19, 5-29-19,
8-15-19, 3-11-20, 6-17-20, 9-16-20, 12-16-20
Docket 1
4/3/20 - Notice to pay court costs in the amount of $350.00 sent to M. Jonathan Hayes, Attorney for Debtors
6/2/20 - Court Cost has NOT been paid to the Court in the amount of
$350.00.
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/8/21 - Kathleen Hateley, (949)677-6626
Tentative Ruling for January 15, 2020:
According to reorganized debtor's post-confirmation status report, the reorganized debtor is currently delinquent on a variety of payments due under
11:00 AM
its confirmed plan. The status report represents that these arrearages will have been cured by the date of the status conference. Has this occurred? Is the reorganized debtor now current on its plan payments? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 15, 2020:
Debtor has not cured arrearages as of January 14, 2020, but thinks it will be able to do so by the end of January and that it will be able to make February payments. Continue status conference to March 11, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.
Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than February 28, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 11, 2020:
Reorganized debtor filed status report belatedly on March 5, 2020. Debtor failed to make the February payments and is having checks returned from two secured creditors. Status report represents that reorganized debtor will cure arrearages before the hearing. Has this occurred? What is the debtor doing about the creditors' whose checks are being returned?
Hearing required.
6/3/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference to September 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than September 4, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 17, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for September 16, 2020:
At request of reorganized debtor, continue post-confirmation status conference to December 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report accompanied by declaration not later than December 4, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 16, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue
11:00 AM
status conference to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than March 5, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 16, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by June 4, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
DDC Group, Inc. Represented By Kathleen Hateley
11:00 AM
MOVANT: UNITED LEASING, INC. fr. 2-23-21
Docket 137
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/1/21 - Ronald Richards, (310)555-1001 3/15/21 - John N. Tedford, (310) 277-0077
3/15/21 - Alphamorlai Kebeh (associate) listen only 3/15/21 - Danielle Gabai (law clerk) listen only 3/16/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
/
2/8/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at
11:00 AM
11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
What is the status of negotiation between the parties? Have they reached agreement concerning the resolution of this motion? If not, continue hearing for further evidence re rate at which value of vehicles is declining and the extent to which debtor has made adequate protection payments. There is a sizeable equity cushion based on the numbers contained in the motion and court lacks sufficient information to ascertain how much of a cushion is necessary to provide adequate protection.
NOTE: Debtors filed a notice re consent to use of cash collateral and vehicles, but it was not related to this matter, as it refers to a motion filed as docket no. 237, not 137. If this was an error and the agreement referenced in that notice relates to this motion, it appears the parties have resolved this matter and court should enter order approving that agreement.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
United Leasing, Inc. Represented By Garry A Masterson
11:00 AM
MOVANT: 1ST SOURCE BANK fr. 2-23-21, 3-2-21
Docket 163
3/15/21 - John N. Tedford, (310) 277-0077
315/21 - Alphamorlai Kebeh (associate) listen only 3/15/21 - Danielle Gabai (law clerk) listen only 3/16/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
3/16/21 - Haleh Naimi, (310)734-2677
2/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 2, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021
2/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Condition continuation of the automatic stay on the debtor's continuing to make adequate protection payments. Court agrees that debtor needs to provide adequate protection to protect the lender from depreciation even with regard to idle vehicles, but the debtor is not only paying adequate protection payments calculated with regard to the number of miles each vehicle is driven, it is also paying interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on all amounts due. Lender has no right to receive interest payments as a component of adequate protection, even if it is oversecured and therefore entitled to add post-petition interest to the amount of its claim. The manner in which the debtor has been calculating per mile depreciation appears reasonable and court has no problem with payments of interest at 6 percent rather than 7. These are adequate protection payments that need not correspond in any way with the amount of interest that may be accruing as a matter of contract. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that depreciation of idle vehicles occurs at a more rapid rate than this.
Court agrees that calculations should start as of petition date. If debtor has not made sufficient adequate protection payments to cover the amount of depreciation that its calculations reflect since that date, it will need to make up the missing payments.
Court agrees that lender should be provided information about damage to vehicles. Debtor should keep lender apprised when damage occurs and should report to lender how it intends to address the problem in a timely manner. Further, if sales have occurred from which proceeds have not been remitted to lender, debtor needs to account for and remit any withheld proceeds.
Court rejects lender's argument that vehicles are not necessary to an effective reorganization. Debtor is in the business of renting vehicles and it is utilizing these vehicles. Debtor cannot run a car rental business without vehicles to rent; and debtor is not currently in a position to purchase a new fleet of vehicles or to withstand a loss of 25 percent of its current fleet.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
1st Source Bank Represented By Haleh C Naimi
11:00 AM
fr. 2-24-21
Docket 165
2/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
3/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
11:00 AM
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
fr. 12-17-20, 2-10-21
Docket 9
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Why does the Bank of the West payroll account need to remain open?
Debtor needs to stop payment on any outstanding checks issued on accounts that remain open. To the extent that the Court authorizes the payment of prepetition amounts, new checks should be issued.
Merchant accounts should remain open for deposits only. Only disbursements the debtor should make from these accounts is to sweep amounts on deposit (net of any required reserves) to a DIP account.
There is a difference between the debtors' depositing all of their funds into, and paying all of their expenses from, a single concentration account and pooling funds in such a way as to permit receipts generated by one debtor to be used to pay expenses attributable to a different debtor. Absent substantive consolidation or an order approving a financing motion as between two or
11:00 AM
more debtor entities, one debtor's expenses should not be paid from revenues generated by a different debtor.
Subject to the foregoing, provided debtor supplies adequate proof of service, grant motion.
Final Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Court granted motion on interim basis through February 12, 2021. Final hearing set for February 10, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. (See interim order for more information.)
Tentative Ruling for February 10, 2021:
Resolve motion on the following terms to which the debtors and the US Trustee have stipulated:
If the substantive consolidation motion currently set for hearing on February 24, 2021 is denied: (A) the Debtors will wind down their cash management system within 30 days after entry of the order denying the substantive consolidation motion; and (B) the authority to use the Debtors’ Cash Management System should be extended to 30 days after entry of such order.
On or before February 8, 2021, the Debtors will amend the December MOR to include "to/from" accounting. Thereafter, the Debtors will provide "to/from" accounting in all MORs until the first month after the Court enters an order granting substantive consolidation.
The Debtors will continue to maintain its single non-DIP Comerica bank account, to be used solely to pay the Debtors’ credit cards as authorized by the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order. The Debtors will not carry on deposit at any given time more than
$100,000 in the non-DIP Comerica bank account. If the Debtors’ balance on deposit in the non-DIP Comerica account exceeds the FDIC limit of $250,000 at any given time, the Debtors will obtain a surety bond in favor of the United States to collateralize any excess over the FDIC limit in an amount no less than 115%, based on the highest average daily
11:00 AM
balance. The Debtors will close the Prepetition Merchant Accounts and Prepetition Payroll Account, as those terms are defined in the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order, in a manner consistent with the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order.
3/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
fr. 12-17-20, 1-27-21, 2-24-21
Docket 12
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Court is confused. Is this really a cash collateral motion or is the debtor seeking approval for its proposed adequate protection programs in an effort to prevent lendors/lessors from seeking relief from stay with regard to its vehicles on the ground that they lack adequate protection?
In other words, where is the cash collateral? According to the motion and the accompanying declaration, when one of its vehicles is sold, the debtor is required to pay either all of the net proceeds to the lender/lessor or at least the portion of the net proceeds necessary to satisfy the balance due under the lease. (If the net proceeds are insufficient for this purpose, debtor will still owe the balance.) Does the debtor plan to start retaining the net proceeds generated from vehicle sales in violation of the contracts?
11:00 AM
Do the relevant agreements make the post-petition rents that the debtor charges for the use of its vehicles proceeds that are subject to the lessor/lendor's security interests? Do any of the lenders have security interests in the payments the debtor receives under its governmental contracts? Does the debtor have other accounts receivable in which the lessors/lenders assert security interests? If not, is there any sense in which the debtor is planning to use cash collateral?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for December 17, 2020:
(See interim order entered December 18, 2020. Court authorized use of cash collateral on interim basis through the close of business on June 29, 2021 in accordance with budget plus a 10 percent variance. Final hearing set for January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Parties must refer to local rules and court manual and serve copies of papers filed on Judge Bluebond. Papers that are not served on the judge will not be considered (unless they are 25 pages or less in length). Papers filed less than two weeks prior to a hearing must be served using an expedited service method (overnight mail, FedEx, etc.)
First Source Bank complains in part that the proposed adequate protection payments are insufficient to compensate it for the depreciation in the value of the vehicles that form its collateral. This is a cash collateral motion. The court will only adjudicate in this context the extent to which the debtor's proposal does or does not provide adequate protection for the use of a lender's CASH collateral. To the extent that a lender believes the debtor is not providing adequate protection for depreciation in the value of a noncash item of collateral, it is free to bring a motion for relief from stay with regard to that item or category of collateral (or to negotiate other arrangements with the debtor). The grant of this motion will not resolve that issue.
11:00 AM
Similarly, if a lessor claims that it holds a true lease of a vehicle and is therefore entitled to payments in accordance with its lease from and after the 60th day of this case, a decision by this court to grant the instant motion would have no affect on such rights. The debtor has not requested and the court is not considering whether to relieve the debtor of any obligation to make such payments.
To the extent that the debtor seeks authority to make adequate protection payments by way of this motion, approval of the motion will not constitute a finding that the proposed adequate payments actually provide adequate protection for the use of anything other than cash collateral.
Court remains concerned that debtor might be required to use cash collateral of one lender to make payments to a different lender if debtor intends to make adequate protection payments to a given lender that exceed the rents generated by that lender's collateral. Is it necessarily the case that this won't occur under the debtor's current proposal?
At the interim hearing, the court was able to determine from budget that any diminution in the cash collateral balances due to the debtors' use of these funds would be more than offset by the cash payments that the debtor would be making during the interim period. Does this remain the case during this period?
Can it be argued that the court should apply equitable principles under section 552(b)(1) to treat only a portion of any post-petition rental payments received as proceeds of the lenders' prepetition collateral?
With regard to proceeds generated from sales of vehicles, turning over all net proceeds generated by the sale of the vehicle is, by definition, adequate protection for the lender's interest in these proceeds. But it should be noted that approval of this motion would not constitute authority for the debtor to sell vehicles out of the ordinary course or to depart from contractual obligations with regard to the procedures for selling vehicles. Pursuant to section 363 of the code, debtor can continue to use, sell or lease property in the ordinary course of business. If debtor wants to sell vehicles other than in the ordinary course of business, it will need to bring a motion requesting such relief.
11:00 AM
Instant motion is not such a motion. Replacement liens should suffice to provide adequate protection for lenders with an interest in other forms of cash collateral.
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Authorize use of cash collateral through February 26, 2021 on same terms as previously authorized, plus additional terms read into record at time of hearing. Debtor will serve any additional papers not later than February 3, 2021. Oppositions will be due February 10, 2021. Replies will be due February 17, 2021. Final hearing on use of cash collateral set for February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
No additional papers have been filed in connection with continued use of cash collateral and hearing on substantive consolidation has been continued to March 17, 2021. What is the status of this matter? Have all objections been resolved? Hearing required.
3/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV
11:00 AM
Michael G D'Alba
2:00 PM
Docket 92
NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Levon Isadzhanyan Represented By Khachik Akhkashian
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander
2:00 PM
Docket 177
NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Golden Vista Construction Inc Represented By Jason Wallach
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Represented By Carmela Pagay
2:00 PM
Docket 44
NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Monir Ahmed Represented By John Asuncion
Joint Debtor(s):
Jesmin Akter Represented By
John Asuncion
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 390
NONE LISTED -
Grant application. Allow on a final basis fees of $249,427.05 and costs of $2,861.33. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due.
APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Regdalin Properties, LLC Represented By Henrik Mosesi
Movant(s):
R. Todd Neilson (TR) Represented By Peter J Mastan
Ashleigh A Danker
Trustee(s):
R. Todd Neilson (TR) Represented By Peter J Mastan
Ashleigh A Danker
2:00 PM
Docket 389
NONE LISTED -
Grant application. Allow on a final basis fees of $588,214.50 and costs of
$15,285.67. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Regdalin Properties, LLC Represented By Henrik Mosesi
Movant(s):
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP Represented By Peter J Mastan
Trustee(s):
R. Todd Neilson (TR) Represented By Peter J Mastan
Ashleigh A Danker
2:00 PM
[Fees requested: $14,402.00, Expenses: $105.62]
Docket 385
NONE LISTED -
Grant application. Allow on a final basis fees of $58,340 and costs of $218.19. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due.
APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Regdalin Properties, LLC Represented By Henrik Mosesi
Movant(s):
Berkeley Research Group, LLC Pro Se
Trustee(s):
R. Todd Neilson (TR) Represented By Peter J Mastan
Ashleigh A Danker
2:00 PM
Docket 387
NONE LISTED -
Grant application. Allow on a final basis fees of $198,714 and costs of $475.36. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Regdalin Properties, LLC Represented By Henrik Mosesi
Movant(s):
Development Specialists, Inc. Pro Se
Trustee(s):
R. Todd Neilson (TR) Represented By Peter J Mastan
Ashleigh A Danker
2:00 PM
fr. 11-7-18, 1-10-19, 4-10-19, 7-17-19. 10-16-19, 1-15-20, 4-29-20, 10-28-20,
12-9-20
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling for January 10, 2019:
Discuss with trustee why he believes that keeping this case in chapter 11 makes more sense than converting the case to chapter 7. When does trustee think he will have all of the appropriate insurance coverages in place? Continue status conference for approximately 90 days.
Final Ruling for January 10, 2019:
Continue hearing to April 10, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file updated status report by April 1, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for April 10, 2019:
Court has reviewed the trustee's updated status report. Set continued status conference for July 17, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file updated status report by July 8, 2019. Waive appearances on April 10, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for July 17, 2019:
Has the sale of the Alondra property now closed? If not, what is the status of that sale?
What is the status of the proposed sale of the Anderson property? Has the
2:00 PM
financing contingency period passed?
Continue status conference approximately 90 days. Should the court set bar date and deadline for serving/publishing notice of bar date?
Tentative Ruling for October 16, 2019:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue case status conference to January 15, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file and serve updated status report not later than January 3, 2020. Appearances waived on October 16, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for January 15, 2020:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue case status conference to April 29, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file and serve updated status report not later than April 17, 2020. Appearances waived on January 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 29, 2020:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue case status conference to October 28, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file and serve updated status report not later than October 16, 2020. Appearances waived on April 29, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 28, 2020:
Are there any steps that could be taken in this court to assist in the resolution of the SBK issues? Could the trustee adjudicate SBK's claim to a constructive trust over/in assets of the estate? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
If court grants motion on calendar as number 108, take status conference off calendar as case will be dismissed (or continue for approximately 60 to 90 days to give trustee an opportunity to effectuate the transactions
2:00 PM
contemplated by the motion).
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Continue case status conference to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give trustee an opportunity to pay amounts allowed in response to fee application and amounts due LA County and deposit remaining funds with Utah court.
Once that has occcured, trustee should file declaration attesting to the fact that all required payments have been made and should lodge an order dismissing case as set forth in more detail in this Court's December 11, 2020 order granting motion for conditional dismissal of case. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Regdalin Properties, LLC Represented By Henrik Mosesi
Trustee(s):
R. Todd Neilson (TR) Represented By Peter J Mastan
Ashleigh A Danker
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:17-01522 Jeffrey J. Bitetti, individually and as Trustee of v. Bren
Complaint by Jeffrey J. Bitetti against Steven M. Bren
fr. 1-9-18, 4-10-18, 6-26-18, 9-27-18, 10-9-18, 1-15-19, 4-16-19, 5-28-19,
9-17-19, 11-19-19, 1-14-20, 2-11-20, 3-10-20, 3-31-20, 4-28-20, 9-22-20,
12-22-20
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
9/25/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 9, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 27, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for October 9, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on motion for summary judgment.
1/9/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing discovery cutoff to April 30, 2019 and continuing status conference to April 16, 2019 at 2 pm. OFF
CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 15, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for April 16, 2019:
Are the parties on track to complete their discovery by April 30, 2019? Where is the joint status report that should have been filed two weeks before the status conference?
Set deadline for filing any additional pretrial motions, and set date for pretrial conference. Discuss with the parties whether it would be appropriate to send
10:00 AM
this matter to mediation.
4/15/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to May 28, 2019. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for May 28, 2019:
Where is the joint status report that should have been filed two weeks before the status conference?
6/6/19 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Pretrial conference -- September 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to lodge pretrial order -- September 3, 2019 L/D to complete discovery -- June 11, 2019
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- June 21, 2019 L/D to file pretrial motions -- August 27, 2019
L/D to complete mediation -- September 17, 2019 6/6/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
6/11/19 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates: Discovery cutoff of June 11, 2019 is modified in following respects: Bren may serve written responses to discovery requests by June 24, 2019; Bitetti may take Bren's deposition not later than September 16, 2019; Plaintiff may file discovery motions related to the foregoing responses by September 16, 2019.
8/28/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to November 19, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.; extending discovery cutoff to the extent necessry to permit Bitetti to take Bren's deposition by November 18, 2019; and extending deadline for filing pretrial motions to November 18, 2019.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2019.
11/4/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to January 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.; extending discovery cutoff to the extent necessry to permit Bitetti to take Bren's deposition by January 13, 2020; and extending deadline for filing pretrial motions to January 13, 2020.
10:00 AM
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2019.
1/8/20 -- Court approved stipulation setting following continued dates: Cont'd pretrial conference -- February 11, 2020 at 2
L/D for Bitetti to take Bren's deposition -- February 10, 2020 L/D to file pretrial motions -- February 10, 2020
OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 14, 2020. PARTIES SHOULD LODGE JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO CONTINUED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE.
1/23/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., extending discovery cutoff to March 9, 2020 for limited purposes, extending deadline for filing pretrial motions to March 9, 2020 and ordering parties to lodge joint pretrial order not later than February 25, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2020.
2/26/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 31, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., extending discovery cutoff to March 23, 2020 for limited purposes, extending deadline for filing pretrial motions to March 23, 2020 and ordering parties to lodge joint pretrial order not later than February 25, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 10, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 31, 2020:
Continue pretrial conference to April 28, 2020at 2:00 p.m. PARTIES SHOULD LODGE A SINGLE JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER not later than Apri
14, 2020. Mr. Altagen should participate personally in negotiations concerning the form of the pretrial order. Parties may break the "admitted facts" portion of the pretrial order into two separate parts: (1) facts that have already been adjudicated by the court and therefore require no proof; and (2) facts that are admitted (and therefore require no proof). If the parties disagree about whether something is or is not an issue, that dispute should be preserved in the pretrial order as well. In other words, under the appropriate list of issues (either issues of law or issues of fact), the parties should include an issue that reads, "whether plaintiff must prove . . . . " If the
10:00 AM
parties persist in lodging separate pretrial orders, the court will review the relevant declarations and orders and assess monetary sanctions as against any party that it considers to have behaved in an unreasonable manner in connection with the drafting of the document.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 31, 2020.
-----------------------------------
Tentative Ruling for April 28, 2020:
Court has a number of questions and concerns with regard to the form of the pretrial order that it will discuss with parties on the record at the time of the pretrial conference.
8/3/20 -- Court continued trial to December 22, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. and related trial deadlines. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2020.
11/9/20 -- Court continued trial to March 23, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and related trial deadlines. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 22, 2020.
2/9/21 -- Court continued trial to August 24, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and related trial deadlines. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 23, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Steven M Bren Represented By Robert S Altagen
Defendant(s):
Steven M. Bren Represented By Robert S Altagen
Plaintiff(s):
Jeffrey J. Bitetti, individually and as Represented By
Roger F Friedman
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Ryan D O'Dea
Rika Kido
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:19-01036 Garcia v. Carroll
fr. 4-9-19, 8-13-19, 11-12-19, 2-11-20, 4-28-20, 6-30-20, 9-1-20, 12-15-20
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Set discovery cutoff for late September, 2019. Continue status conference approximately 90 to 120 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to the date of the continued status conference.
4/15/19 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- August 13, 2019 at 2
L/D to file joint status report -- July 30, 2019
L/D to complete discovery -- September 30, 2019
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- April 23, 2019 L/D to complete mediation -- August 13, 2019
4/14/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
7/29/19 -- Court approved order appointing replacement mediators. Tentative Ruling for August 13, 2019:
Although the parties filed a document entitled, "Joint Status Report," it does not contain any of the information that the Court requires in a joint status report. Hearing required.
Final Ruling for August 13, 2019:
10:00 AM
Continue status conference to November 12, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than October 29, 2019. Court extended discovery cutoff to October 31, 2019. Defendant was instructed to lodge scheduling order with these dates.
Tentative Ruling for November 12, 2019:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for defendant for failing to lodge scheduling order as instructed at last status conference. Are parties requesting a further extension of the discovery cutoff? Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
11/18/19 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- February 11, 2019 at 2 Extended discovery cutoff -- December 31, 2019
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- November 29, 2019 L/D to complete mediation -- February 11, 2019
12/19/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators. 1/29/20 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates:
Cont'd date for completion of mediation -- April 28, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- April 28, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- April 14, 2020
OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2020.
3/25/20 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates:
Cont'd date for completion of mediation -- June 30, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- June 30, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- June 16, 2020
OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 28, 2020.
10:00 AM
6/12/20 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates:
Cont'd date for completion of mediation -- July 31, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- September 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for September 1, 2020:
Have the parties now completed a second day of mediation? Was it successful? If not, have the parties now completed discovery? If not, are the parties requesting an extension of the discovery cutoff? Hearing required.
9/4/20 -- court approved scheduling order with following dates:
L/D to file pretrial motions -- November 2, 2020
L/D to lodge joint pretrial order -- December 1, 2020 Pretrial conference -- December 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for December 15, 2020:
Discuss with parties the need to complete the videos via Zoom. Court has a few questions/comments with regard to the form of the joint pretrial order.
Hearing required.
2/26/21 -- Court approved settlement. Action dismissed. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
John Carroll Represented By
Allan D Sarver
Defendant(s):
John Carroll Represented By
10:00 AM
David M Almaraz
Joint Debtor(s):
Donna Carroll Represented By Allan D Sarver
Plaintiff(s):
Jose "Joseph" Moises Garcia Represented By Michael B Wilson
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: VICTORIA CAPITAL TRUST
Docket 91
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/29/21 - Nancy Lee, (619)302-5482
3/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving motion. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Joint Debtor(s):
10:00 AM
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
Movant(s):
Victoria Capital Trust Represented By Nancy L Lee
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
10:00 AM
MOVANT: ALVIN WEIMAN AND JEAN WEIMAN
Docket 52
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/29/21 - Michael Nicastro, (949)534-6990 3/29/21 - Martina Slocomb, (949)534-6990
The term of the lease has long since expired. Tenant now occupies property on a month-to-month basis. Debtor is not a party to the lease and the lease by its terms says that the premises are to be used only for sale of pool supplies and for no other purpose. Lessor wants relief from stay to terminate lease. Grant motion without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
LUZ E ENRIQUEZ Represented By Misty Wilks
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Alvin Weiman Represented By Michael N Nicastro
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Represented By Amy L Goldman Maria L Garcia
Aviram Edward Muhtar
10:00 AM
MOVANT: INOVA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
Docket 10
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Thomas Phillip Israni Represented By
D Justin Harelik
Movant(s):
INOVA Federal Credit Union Represented By Nicholas S Couchot
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: ANCHOR LOANS, LP
Docket 8
Grant motion, including waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3). Make finding that bankruptcy case was part of a scheme to hinder, delay and defraud creditors that included the transfer of an interest in property without movant's consent.
Debtor(s):
Daniel Dennis Carberry Represented By Eliza Ghanooni
Movant(s):
Anchor Loans, LP Represented By Glenn C. Kelble
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN # JTJJM7FX8F5113242 MOVANT: TD AUTO FINANCE, LLC.
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/26/21 - Sheryl Ith, (714)431-1029
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Mania Aharounian Represented By Richard A Avetisyan
Movant(s):
TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: GIVE BACK, LLC.
Docket 59
Grant motion insofar as it requests comfort order clarifying that automatic stay does not preclude movant from exercising its rights and remedies as against nondebtors under its guaranties and membership interest pledge agreements.
Debtors response to the motion is that there is a sizeable equity cushion, based upon its appraisal; however, opposition does not dispute or even respond to movant's contention that the value of movant's collateral is declining in value due to debtors' continuing failure to pay real estate taxes. Trustee's sale guaranties reflect that all of the properties are tax defaulted for nonpayment of taxes going back to 2018. (Accrual of interest on debtors' obligations to movant does not constitute a loss in value for which movant is entitled to receive adequate protection.)
Court acknowledges that, even if there is no equity in property, as these lots are the debtors' only assets, they are necessary to any possible
10:00 AM
reorganization, but the Court is not yet in a position to determine whether any reorganization is likely to occur within a reasonable period. Court is not inclined to schedule an evidentiary hearing as to the value of the property, as the court will not rely on the existence of an equity cushion as adequate protection when there is an actual and quantifiable diminution in value occurring due to the nonpayment of real property taxes and the accrual of interest thereon.
What is the aggregate amount of real estate taxes currently outstanding with regard to the lots and at what rate do these unpaid taxes accrue interest?
How much more in real estate taxes will become delinquent if not paid by April 10? If debtors want an opportunity to try to reorganize their affairs in chapter 11, they will need to at least keep the size of the debt senior to movant from increasing while they attempt to do so.
Enter adequate protection order that conditions continuation of the automatic stay on the debtors' remaining current with post-petition real estate taxes and making monthly payments to movant in an amount that is not less than the amount of interest and penalties that are accruing monthly on the unpaid real property taxes.
Set continued hearing on balance of relief requested in motion for approximately 90 days, by which time court should have a better sense of whether there is likely to be a reorganization within a reasonable period.
Debtor(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut Annie Y Stoops Dylan J Yamamoto
Lydda Lud, LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Give Back LLC Represented By Daniel A Lev
10:30 AM
Adv#: 2:20-01116 Avery v. Premiere Medical Center of Burbank, Inc. et al
fr. 7-14-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20
Docket 1
6/9/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant to respond to complaint to July 17, 2020 and continuing status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Discuss with parties procedures for withdrawal of reference when a jury trial has been requested. Discovery cannot await the resolution of that motion. Set discovery cutoff for approximately 120 days.
8/26/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- December 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
10:30 AM
L/D to file joint status report -- November 17, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- February 26, 2021
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Are parties requesting extension of discovery cutoff? Hearing required.
12/7/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to complete discovery -- April 30, 2021
1/10/21 -- Court approved stipulation authorizing trustee to file first amended complaint.
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
According to the status report, the parties have negotiated a settlement in principle. Has this settlement been reduced to writing? What will the structure of the proposed settlement be? Hearing required.
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation and continued hearing to April 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 30, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Premiere Medical Management Represented By David L Oberg
Defendant(s):
Premiere Medical Center of Represented By Ian S Shelton
Michael D Marsh, M.D. Represented By Ian S Shelton
NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza I Represented By
10:30 AM
Lloyd S Mann Paul B Derby
DOES 1-10, Inclusive Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Wesley H Avery Represented By Stephen L Raucher
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Daniel R Lahana Stephen L Raucher
10:30 AM
Adv#: 2:20-01649 Gonzalez v. JEON et al
fr. 12-15-20
Docket 1
Continue status conference 90 to 120 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued mediation.
12/16/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file updated status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- January 5, 2021 Deadline to complete mediation -- March 30, 2021
1/15/21 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
10:30 AM
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by March 16, 2021? How long do the parties need to complete discovery? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
ERIN JEON Represented By
Jaenam J Coe Gilad Berkowitz
Defendant(s):
ERIN JEON Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Jong Kim Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Richard Y Park Represented By Jaenam J Coe
Carolyn Park Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
LION & ERIN CORPORATION Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Yong Hun Kim Represented By Jaenam J Coe
Yoon Jeong Choi Represented By Todd A Fuson
Sung Sik Lim Represented By James E Adler
Young Sook Kang Represented By Todd A Fuson
10:30 AM
JSDB, Inc. Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Hyo Jin Japanese Restaurant, Inc. Represented By
Todd A Fuson
DOES 1 through 30, inclusive Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Jong Kim Represented By
Jaenam J Coe Gilad Berkowitz
Plaintiff(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez Represented By Cameron H Totten
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 2:19-01170 Farwell v. Herzstock
J. Herzstock
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20
fr. 2-23-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/29/21 - Zachary Levine, (818)241-7499
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Explain to defendant importance of complying with court's local rules concerning the conduct of adversary proceeding.
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
10:30 AM
Where is status report that should have been filed by November 19, 2019?
Final Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by February 25, 2020. Parties are to complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020 and should lodge an order appointing mediators by December 24, 2019. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order as instructed at prior status conference. Impose additional sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and defendant in pro per for failing to lodge an order appointing mediators and complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020, as directed by the Court. Impose additional sanctions of
$150 on defendant in pro per for failing to participate in preparation of joint status report. Lack of cooperation from defendant does not excuse plaintiff from deadlines established by the Court. These are joint obligations.
Set discovery cutoff for late May, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Order parties AGAIN to conduct mediation. If defendant does not cooperate in selection of mediators, plaintiff should lodge unilateral order appointing mediators. If parties do not complete mediation by new deadline, court will impose additional monetary sanctions of not less than $500. Court does not consider its deadlines to be optional.
3/11/20 -- Court issued scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 16, 2020 at 2:00 pm
Discovery cutoff -- May 31, 2020
L/D to file pretrial motions -- June 15, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- March 23, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- June 16, 2020
Court imposed sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order after last status conference.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
10:30 AM
Impose sanctions of $150 on defendant for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Impose additional $150 in sanctions on defendant for failing to cooperate in the scheduling of mediation. The deadline for filing pretrial motions was June 15, 2020. If defendant has not responded to discovery requests, why hasn't plaintiff filed motion to compel discovery? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report. Court will impose monetary sanctions at that time if parties fail to file joint status report in a timely manner or if mediation has not been completed.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Parties have again failed to file joint status report in a timely manner. Impose monetary sanctions of $150 each on counsel for the parties for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Have the parties completed a day of mediation? If not, impose additional sanctions of $500 each on counsel for the parties and issue OSC why action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
10/5/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
Final Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff of December 30, 2020. Pretrial motions should be filed by February 2, 2021. Parties must lodge proposed pretrial order by February 9, 2021. Schedule pretrial conference for February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order setting forth these dates.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
10:30 AM
Plaintiff has failed to lodge scheduling order as directed. As a result, other deadlines were missed. Where is the joint pretrial order that should have been lodged by February 9, 2021? Impose monetary sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and renew OSC re dismissal for failure to prosecute. Set hearing on OSC for same date and time as continued pretrial conference.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to lodge joint proposed pretrial order not later than March 16, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Pretrial order should have been lodged, not filed. Court has many questions and concerns with regard to the form of the pretrial order that will be discussed with the parties at the time of the pretrial conference.
Debtor(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Represented By
J.D. Cuzzolina
Defendant(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Alec Farwell Represented By
Sarah R Wolk Zachary Levine
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 2:19-01171 Chasse v. Herzstock
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20
fr. 2-23-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/29/21 - Zachary Levine, (818)241-7499
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Explain to defendant importance of complying with court's local rules concerning the conduct of adversary proceeding.
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
10:30 AM
Where is status report that should have been filed by November 19, 2019?
Final Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by February 25, 2020. Parties are to complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020 and should lodge an order appointing mediators by December 24, 2019. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order as instructed at prior status conference. Impose additional sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and defendant in pro per for failing to lodge an order appointing mediators and complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020, as directed by the Court. Impose additional sanctions of
$150 on defendant in pro per for failing to participate in preparation of joint status report. Lack of cooperation from defendant does not excuse plaintiff from deadlines established by the Court. These are joint obligations.
Set discovery cutoff for late May, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Order parties AGAIN to conduct mediation. If defendant does not cooperate in selection of mediators, plaintiff should lodge unilateral order appointing mediators. If parties do not complete mediation by new deadline, court will impose additional monetary sanctions of not less than $500. Court does not consider its deadlines to be optional.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on defendant for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Impose additional $500 in sanctions on defendant for failing to cooperate in the scheduling of mediation. The deadline for filing pretrial motions was June 15, 2020. If defendant has not responded to discovery requests, why hasn't plaintiff filed motion to compel discovery? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for June 16, 2020:
10:30 AM
Continue status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report. Court will impose monetary sanctions at that time if parties fail to file joint status report in a timely manner or if mediation has not been completed.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Parties have again failed to file joint status report in a timely manner. Impose monetary sanctions of $150 each on counsel for the parties for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Have the parties completed a day of mediation? If not, impose additional sanctions of $500 each on counsel for the parties and issue OSC why action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
10/5/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
Final Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff of December 30, 2020. Pretrial motions should be filed by February 2, 2021. Parties must lodge proposed pretrial order by February 9, 2021. Schedule pretrial conference for February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order setting forth these dates.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Plaintiff has failed to lodge scheduling order as directed. As a result, other deadlines were missed. Where is the joint pretrial order that should have been lodged by February 9, 2021? Impose monetary sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and renew OSC re dismissal for failure to prosecute. Set hearing on OSC for same date and time as continued pretrial conference.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to lodge joint proposed pretrial order not later than March 16, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
10:30 AM
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Pretrial order should have been lodged, not filed. Court has many questions and concerns with regard to the form of the pretrial order that will be discussed with the parties at the time of the pretrial conference.
Debtor(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Represented By
J.D. Cuzzolina
Defendant(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Kyle Chasse Represented By
Sarah R Wolk Zachary Levine
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 2:20-01048 Dye v. Chen et al
fr. 5-5-20, 6-2-20, 8-4-20, 8-11-20, 10-27-20, 12-15-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/26/21 - Samuel Boyamian, (310)271-6223
4/3/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant to respond to complaint to April 17, 2020.
4/7/10 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant Chen to respond to complaint to May 1, 2020.
4/17/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant Wang to respond to complaint to May 1, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2020:
Continue status conference to June 2, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with
10:30 AM
motion to dismiss filed by defendant Bin Wang. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 2, 2020:
See tentative ruling for matter no. 204. Continue status conference to August 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than two weeks prior to continued status conference. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 2, 2020.
6/4/20 -- Court approved order granting motion to dismiss with leave to amend and setting following dates:
L/D for plaintiff to file amended complaint -- June 23, 2020
L/D for defendants to respond to amended complaint -- July 14, 2020 L/D to file updated status report -- July 21, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- August 4, 2020 at 2:00 pm.
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to August 11, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 4, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matter on calendar.
10/20/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference to December 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 27, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 15, 2020:
Continue status conference 90 to 120 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued mediation.
12/16/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file updated status report -- March 16, 2021
10:30 AM
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- January 5, 2021 Deadline to complete mediation -- March 30, 2021
1/11/21 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Why does plaintiff state in status report that matter is not yet at issue? Defendant filed an answer to the second amended complaint in November. Parties participated in a mediation that was unsuccessful on March 16, 2021, yet both parties indicate that they want this matter sent to mediation. Have parties explored with mediator his/her willingness to conduct another day of mediation? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Shaoqiang Chen Represented By Gary R Wallace
Defendant(s):
Shaoqiang Chen Represented By Gary R Wallace
Bin Wang Represented By
Michael Jay Berger
Plaintiff(s):
Carolyn Dye Represented By
Felix T Woo James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By James A Dumas Jr
10:30 AM
Adv#: 2:19-01177 Acra Machinery, Inc., a California corporation et v. Avakian
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20, 1-5-21, 3-2-21
Docket 1
Continue status conference for approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
12/27/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Final Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report not later than February 25, 2020. Parties should lodge an order appointing mediators not later than December 24, 2020 and should complete a day of mediation not later than March 10, 2020. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
10:30 AM
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order. Impose sanctions of $150 each on counsel for parties for failing to file joint status report in a timely manner.
Did the parties complete a day of mediation as previously ordered by the Court? If not, why not?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/7/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
7/10/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- July 7, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- September 15, 2020
Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Why didn't the parties complete mediation by the deadline that the court established for this purpose? Hearing required.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to complete mediation to October 5, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
What is the status of this matter? Did the parties in fact participate in a mediation by the deadline established by the court for this purpose? Hearing required.
10:30 AM
11/3/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- January 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- December 22, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- December 21, 2020
12/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to February 21, 2021
Status conference continued to March 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to January 19, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 5, 2021
2/19/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to March 22, 2021
Status conference continued to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to March 16, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Have the parties now completed discovery? Does either party anticipate filing any pretrial motions? Hearing required.
3/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation extending discovery cutoff to April 19, 2021 and continuing status conference to Apri 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 30, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
10:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Plaintiff(s):
Acra Machinery, Inc., a California Represented By
Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
ACRA SEIKI, Inc., a California Represented By Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 2:20-01126 Pouladian v. Deco Enterprises, Inc. et al
fr. 7-14-20, 9-1-20, 11-3-20, 12-1-20, 2-2-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/22/21 - John Yates, (818)381-5891
3/29/21 - Layal Bishara, (310)586-7781 3/29/21 - Amy Mousavi
According to the parties' status report, a mediation must be completed in a related LASC action by July 31, 2020. Have the parties scheduled a mediation date? Hearing required.
7/21/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
10:30 AM
L/D for Edith Pouladian to file and serve response to cross-complaint -- August 4, 2020
L/D for plaintiff to file and serve opposition to motion to dismiss (if response is a motion to dismiss) -- August 18, 2020
L/D for Edith Pouladian to file and serve reply to any such opposition -- August 25, 2020
Contined status conference and hearing on any motion to dismiss -- September 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for September 1, 2020:
What is the status of this matter? Set deadline for filing of responses to first amended cross-complaint. How long do the parties anticipate it will take to conduct discovery? Hearing required.
9/2/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for cross-complainants to file second amended cross-comlaint -- 9/11/20 L/D to file joint status report -- October 20, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- November 3, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for November 3, 2020:
Where is joint status report that should have been filed by October 20, 2020? How much time do the parties need to conduct discovery? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to an early mediation? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
If court grants motion to dismiss (number 214), the number of claims asserted in this adversary proceeding will be reduced and the parties' responses to the questions posed in the status report may be different. Continue status conference approximately 60 to 90 days and require parties to file an updated status report. (The parties should respond to all questions raised by the status report.)
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
10:30 AM
Parties have already completed a day of mediation. Discuss with parties whether additional mediation would be helpful. Does either party contemplate being in a position to bring any pretrial motions? Set discovery cutoff and continue case status conference.
2/9/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to complete discovery -- December 17, 2021
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Discuss with parties whether it might be a good time to make another attempt at resolving this matter through mediation.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
Defendant(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
Craig Allen Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Benjamin Pouladian Represented By John R Yates
11:00 AM
fr. 3-10-21
Docket 319
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/29/21 - Bruce Landau, (310)838-1507
See tentative ruling for debtor's amended disclosure statement.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
Movant(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver Raymond H. Aver
11:00 AM
fr. 3-10-21
Docket 318
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/29/21 - Bruce Landau, (310)838-1507
OFF CALENDAR. DEBTOR HAS NOW FILED AMENDED DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND PLAN.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
11:00 AM
Docket 337
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/29/21 - Bruce Landau, (310)838-1507
Subject to a few minor corrections (mostly to fix typographical errors), approve disclosure statement and set schedule for confirmation process.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/29/21 - Bruce Landau, (310)838-1507
Continue case status conference to July 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with status conference in Pouladian adversary proceeding. Debtor need not file new case status report in connection with July 14 case status conference.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 3, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2020:
How are the debtor's operations? Has the debtor been meeting its projections? May 26 status report referred to efforts by the debtor to obtain DIP financing and represented that debtor anticipated filing one or more financing motions by June 25. This hasn't happened. What is the status of debtor's efforts to obtain financing?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for July 14, 2020:
11:00 AM
Continue status conference to September 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (Court changed this to 11:00 a.m.) Debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than September 4, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for September 16, 2020:
Continue case status conference to date that can serve as date of hearing on disclosure statement.
Final Ruling for September 16, 2020:
Continue case status conference to January 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Disclosure statement may be heard at same time if debtor files plan and disclosure statement sufficiently in advance of that date to comply with applicable rules. Status report waived if court is conducting hearing on disclosure statement concurrently with status conference.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Continue status conference to date that can serve as date of hearing on disclosure statement if debtor files plan and disclosure statement by February 1, 2021 -- March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Debtor need not file updated status report for that status conference. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 27, 2021.
Tentative Ruilng for March 30, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on amended disclosure statement.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01116 Avery v. Premiere Medical Center of Burbank, Inc. et al
fr. 7-14-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20
Docket 1
3/16/21 - Notice of rescheduled hearing mailed to parties. Matter rescheduled to 3/30/21 @ 10:30am
6/9/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant to respond to complaint to July 17, 2020 and continuing status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Discuss with parties procedures for withdrawal of reference when a jury trial has been requested. Discovery cannot await the resolution of that motion. Set discovery cutoff for approximately 120 days.
8/26/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- December 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- November 17, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- February 26, 2021
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Are parties requesting extension of discovery cutoff? Hearing required.
2:00 PM
12/7/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to complete discovery -- April 30, 2021
1/10/21 -- Court approved stipulation authorizing trustee to file first amended complaint.
MATTER RESCHEDULED TO 10:30 A.M.
Debtor(s):
Premiere Medical Management Represented By David L Oberg
Defendant(s):
Premiere Medical Center of Represented By Ian S Shelton
Michael D Marsh, M.D. Represented By Ian S Shelton
NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza I Represented By
Lloyd S Mann Paul B Derby
DOES 1-10, Inclusive Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Wesley H Avery Represented By Stephen L Raucher
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Daniel R Lahana Stephen L Raucher
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01649 Gonzalez v. JEON et al
fr. 12-15-20
Docket 1
3/16/21 - Notice of rescheduled hearing mailed to parties. Matter rescheduled to 3/30/21 @ 10:30am
Continue status conference 90 to 120 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued mediation.
12/16/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file updated status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- January 5, 2021 Deadline to complete mediation -- March 30, 2021
1/15/21 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
MATTER RESCHEDULED TO 10:30 A.M.
Debtor(s):
ERIN JEON Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
2:00 PM
Gilad Berkowitz
Defendant(s):
ERIN JEON Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Jong Kim Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Richard Y Park Represented By Jaenam J Coe
Carolyn Park Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
LION & ERIN CORPORATION Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Yong Hun Kim Represented By Jaenam J Coe
Yoon Jeong Choi Represented By Todd A Fuson
Sung Sik Lim Represented By James E Adler
Young Sook Kang Represented By Todd A Fuson
JSDB, Inc. Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Hyo Jin Japanese Restaurant, Inc. Represented By
Todd A Fuson
DOES 1 through 30, inclusive Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Jong Kim Represented By
Jaenam J Coe Gilad Berkowitz
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez Represented By Cameron H Totten
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01170 Farwell v. Herzstock
J. Herzstock
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20
fr. 2-23-21
Docket 1
3/16/21 - Notice of rescheduled hearing mailed to parties. Matter rescheduled to 3/30/21 @ 10:30am
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Explain to defendant importance of complying with court's local rules concerning the conduct of adversary proceeding.
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Where is status report that should have been filed by November 19, 2019?
Final Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by February 25, 2020. Parties are to complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020 and should lodge an order appointing mediators by December 24, 2019. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order as instructed at prior status conference. Impose additional sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and defendant in pro per for failing to lodge an order appointing mediators and complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020, as directed by the Court. Impose additional sanctions of
$150 on defendant in pro per for failing to participate in preparation of joint status report. Lack of cooperation from defendant does not excuse plaintiff from deadlines established by the Court. These are joint obligations.
Set discovery cutoff for late May, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Order parties AGAIN to conduct mediation. If defendant does not cooperate in selection of mediators, plaintiff should lodge unilateral order appointing mediators. If parties do not complete mediation by new deadline, court will impose additional monetary sanctions of not less than $500. Court does not consider its deadlines to be optional.
3/11/20 -- Court issued scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 16, 2020 at 2:00 pm
Discovery cutoff -- May 31, 2020
L/D to file pretrial motions -- June 15, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- March 23, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- June 16, 2020
Court imposed sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order after last status conference.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on defendant for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Impose additional $150 in sanctions on defendant for failing to cooperate in the scheduling of mediation. The deadline for filing pretrial motions was June 15, 2020. If defendant has not responded to discovery requests, why hasn't plaintiff filed motion to compel discovery? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for June 16, 2020:
2:00 PM
Continue status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report. Court will impose monetary sanctions at that time if parties fail to file joint status report in a timely manner or if mediation has not been completed.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Parties have again failed to file joint status report in a timely manner. Impose monetary sanctions of $150 each on counsel for the parties for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Have the parties completed a day of mediation? If not, impose additional sanctions of $500 each on counsel for the parties and issue OSC why action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
10/5/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
Final Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff of December 30, 2020. Pretrial motions should be filed by February 2, 2021. Parties must lodge proposed pretrial order by February 9, 2021. Schedule pretrial conference for February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order setting forth these dates.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Plaintiff has failed to lodge scheduling order as directed. As a result, other deadlines were missed. Where is the joint pretrial order that should have been lodged by February 9, 2021? Impose monetary sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and renew OSC re dismissal for failure to prosecute. Set hearing on OSC for same date and time as continued pretrial conference.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to lodge joint proposed pretrial order not later than March 16, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
MATTER RESCHEDULED TO 10:30 A.M.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Represented By
J.D. Cuzzolina
Defendant(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Alec Farwell Represented By
Sarah R Wolk Zachary Levine
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01171 Chasse v. Herzstock
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20
fr. 2-23-21
Docket 1
3/16/21 - Notice of rescheduled hearing mailed to parties. Matter rescheduled to 3/30/21 @ 10:30am
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Explain to defendant importance of complying with court's local rules concerning the conduct of adversary proceeding.
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Where is status report that should have been filed by November 19, 2019?
Final Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by February 25, 2020. Parties are to complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020 and should lodge an order appointing mediators by December 24, 2019. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order as instructed at prior status conference. Impose additional sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and defendant in pro per for failing to lodge an order appointing mediators and complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020, as directed by the Court. Impose additional sanctions of
$150 on defendant in pro per for failing to participate in preparation of joint status report. Lack of cooperation from defendant does not excuse plaintiff from deadlines established by the Court. These are joint obligations.
Set discovery cutoff for late May, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Order parties AGAIN to conduct mediation. If defendant does not cooperate in selection of mediators, plaintiff should lodge unilateral order appointing mediators. If parties do not complete mediation by new deadline, court will impose additional monetary sanctions of not less than $500. Court does not consider its deadlines to be optional.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on defendant for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Impose additional $500 in sanctions on defendant for failing to cooperate in the scheduling of mediation. The deadline for filing pretrial motions was June 15, 2020. If defendant has not responded to discovery requests, why hasn't plaintiff filed motion to compel discovery? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report. Court will impose monetary sanctions at that time if parties fail to file joint status report in a timely manner or if mediation has not been completed.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Parties have again failed to file joint status report in a timely manner. Impose monetary sanctions of $150 each on counsel for the parties for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Have the parties completed a day of
2:00 PM
mediation? If not, impose additional sanctions of $500 each on counsel for the parties and issue OSC why action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
10/5/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
Final Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff of December 30, 2020. Pretrial motions should be filed by February 2, 2021. Parties must lodge proposed pretrial order by February 9, 2021. Schedule pretrial conference for February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order setting forth these dates.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Plaintiff has failed to lodge scheduling order as directed. As a result, other deadlines were missed. Where is the joint pretrial order that should have been lodged by February 9, 2021? Impose monetary sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and renew OSC re dismissal for failure to prosecute. Set hearing on OSC for same date and time as continued pretrial conference.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to lodge joint proposed pretrial order not later than March 16, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
MATTER RESCHEDULED TO 10:30 A.M.
Debtor(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Represented By
J.D. Cuzzolina
Defendant(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Pro Se
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Kyle Chasse Represented By
Sarah R Wolk Zachary Levine
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01048 Dye v. Chen et al
fr. 5-5-20, 6-2-20, 8-4-20, 8-11-20, 10-27-20, 12-15-20
Docket 1
3/16/21 - Notice of rescheduled hearing mailed to parties. Matter rescheduled to 3/30/21 @ 10:30am
4/3/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant to respond to complaint to April 17, 2020.
4/7/10 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant Chen to respond to complaint to May 1, 2020.
4/17/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant Wang to respond to complaint to May 1, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2020:
Continue status conference to June 2, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss filed by defendant Bin Wang. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 2, 2020:
See tentative ruling for matter no. 204. Continue status conference to August 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than two weeks prior to continued status conference. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 2, 2020.
2:00 PM
6/4/20 -- Court approved order granting motion to dismiss with leave to amend and setting following dates:
L/D for plaintiff to file amended complaint -- June 23, 2020
L/D for defendants to respond to amended complaint -- July 14, 2020 L/D to file updated status report -- July 21, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- August 4, 2020 at 2:00 pm.
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to August 11, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 4, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matter on calendar.
10/20/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference to December 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 27, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 15, 2020:
Continue status conference 90 to 120 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued mediation.
12/16/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file updated status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- January 5, 2021 Deadline to complete mediation -- March 30, 2021
1/11/21 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
MATTER RESCHEDULED TO 10:30 A.M.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Shaoqiang Chen Represented By Gary R Wallace
Defendant(s):
Shaoqiang Chen Represented By Gary R Wallace
Bin Wang Represented By
Michael Jay Berger
Plaintiff(s):
Carolyn Dye Represented By
Felix T Woo James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By James A Dumas Jr
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01177 Acra Machinery, Inc., a California corporation et v. Avakian
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20, 1-5-21, 3-2-21
Docket 1
3/16/21 - Notice of rescheduled hearing mailed to parties. Matter rescheduled to 3/30/21 @ 10:30am
Continue status conference for approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
12/27/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Final Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report not later than February 25, 2020. Parties should lodge an order appointing mediators not later than December 24, 2020 and should complete a day of mediation not later than March 10, 2020. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order. Impose sanctions of $150 each on counsel for parties for failing to file joint status report in a timely manner.
2:00 PM
Did the parties complete a day of mediation as previously ordered by the Court? If not, why not?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/7/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
7/10/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- July 7, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- September 15, 2020
Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Why didn't the parties complete mediation by the deadline that the court established for this purpose? Hearing required.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to complete mediation to October 5, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
What is the status of this matter? Did the parties in fact participate in a mediation by the deadline established by the court for this purpose? Hearing required.
11/3/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- January 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- December 22, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- December 21, 2020
2:00 PM
12/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to February 21, 2021
Status conference continued to March 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to January 19, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 5, 2021
2/19/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to March 22, 2021
Status conference continued to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to March 16, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021
MATTER RESCHEDULED TO 10:30 A.M.
Debtor(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Defendant(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Plaintiff(s):
ACRA SEIKI, Inc., a California Represented By Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
Acra Machinery, Inc., a California Represented By
Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01126 Pouladian v. Deco Enterprises, Inc. et al
fr. 7-14-20, 9-1-20, 11-3-20, 12-1-20, 2-2-21
Docket 1
3/16/21 - Notice of rescheduled hearing mailed to parties. Matter rescheduled to 3/30/21 @ 10:30am
According to the parties' status report, a mediation must be completed in a related LASC action by July 31, 2020. Have the parties scheduled a mediation date? Hearing required.
7/21/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for Edith Pouladian to file and serve response to cross-complaint -- August 4, 2020
L/D for plaintiff to file and serve opposition to motion to dismiss (if response is a motion to dismiss) -- August 18, 2020
L/D for Edith Pouladian to file and serve reply to any such opposition -- August 25, 2020
Contined status conference and hearing on any motion to dismiss -- September 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for September 1, 2020:
What is the status of this matter? Set deadline for filing of responses to first amended cross-complaint. How long do the parties anticipate it will take to conduct discovery?
2:00 PM
Hearing required.
9/2/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for cross-complainants to file second amended cross-comlaint -- 9/11/20 L/D to file joint status report -- October 20, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- November 3, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for November 3, 2020:
Where is joint status report that should have been filed by October 20, 2020? How much time do the parties need to conduct discovery? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to an early mediation? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
If court grants motion to dismiss (number 214), the number of claims asserted in this adversary proceeding will be reduced and the parties' responses to the questions posed in the status report may be different. Continue status conference approximately 60 to 90 days and require parties to file an updated status report. (The parties should respond to all questions raised by the status report.)
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
Parties have already completed a day of mediation. Discuss with parties whether additional mediation would be helpful. Does either party contemplate being in a position to bring any pretrial motions? Set discovery cutoff and continue case status conference.
2/9/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to complete discovery -- December 17, 2021
MATTER RESCHEDULED TO 10:30 A.M.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
Defendant(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
Craig Allen Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Benjamin Pouladian Represented By John R Yates
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
[Presumption of Undue Hardship]
Docket 8
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Johnny Le Represented By
Quang V Tran
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
[Presumption of Undue Hardship]
Docket 10
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Maureen Beeks Represented By Nancy Korompis
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
Prepetition credit counseling needs to have been taken within the 180 days prior to the bankruptcy filing. Debtor took couseling more than a year before filing and is not eligible to be a debtor in bankruptcy. Dismiss case.
Debtor(s):
Jorge Silva Represented By
Laura E Claveran
Joint Debtor(s):
Silvana Oliviera Campos Represented By Laura E Claveran
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
fr. 2-24-21
Docket 26
ZoomGov appearance by:
3/29/21 - Giovanni Orantes, (213)389-4362
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Motion does not contain evidence as to the balance of the first and second voluntary liens, and the amounts oustanding listed in the order are different from the amounts in the motion. The only "proof" offered is debtor's own schedule D. Continue hearing to give movant an opportunity to provide evidence to support contentions as to balance due on voluntary liens.
Final Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 31, 2021 at 10:00 .a.m. Debtor should file and serve any supplemental declarations not later than March 22, 2021.
10:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for March 31, 2021:
If the balance on the Citibank Mortgage was $125,352.53 (or less) and the balance on the Chase deed of trust was $21,870.78 as of the petition date, and the value of the property was $245,000, the available equity is approximately $2,500 more than the exemption claimed by the debtor ($95,384). Does the debtor have the ability to amend Schedule C to claim a higher exemption amount?
Debtor(s):
Candido Reyes Sanchez Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Joint Debtor(s):
Aracely Reyes Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Movant(s):
Candido Reyes Sanchez Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Aracely Reyes Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 14
Grant motion. Waive requirement that debtor (who is now deceased) complete a financial management course and appoint debtor's son, Everardo Aguilar, as debtor's next friend. APPEARANCES WAIVED. MOVANT IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSITENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Jesus B Jimenez Aguilar Represented By Hector Vega
Movant(s):
Jesus B Jimenez Aguilar Represented By Hector Vega Hector Vega Hector Vega
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Hector Vega Hector Vega Hector Vega Hector Vega
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 739
3/15/21 - Trustee filed Amended Notice of Hearing. Hearing rescheduled to APRIL 7, 2021 @ 10AM;
OFF CALENDAR. HEARING HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO APRIL 7, 2021 AT 10:00 A.M.
Debtor(s):
Samuel Michael Saber Represented By Matthew A Lesnick Charles T Marshall
Movant(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Elissa Miller
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Elissa Miller
10:00 AM
fr. 3-17-21
Docket 404
3/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 31, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
3/15/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 31, 2021.
Debtor(s):
MedCoast Medservice Inc. Represented By Henry D Paloci
Movant(s):
MedCoast Medservice Inc. Represented By Henry D Paloci
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
David Keith Gottlieb (TR) Represented By Ron Bender
Krikor J Meshefejian
10:00 AM
Docket 79
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/24/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777
3/17/21 -- At hearing held this date, court continued hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR THIS DATE. Parties also agreed that opposition to claim objection will be due March 25, 2021 and replies will be due April 9, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Movant(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
10:00 AM
Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
Docket 44
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/24/21 - Najah Shariff, (213)894-2534
3/29/21 - Robert Klyman, (213)229-7562 3/30/21 - Jeffrey Resiner, (213)439-9452 3/30/21 - Joshua Taylor, (202)429-6281
3/30/21 - William Lobel, (714)549-7181
3/30/21 - Marshall Camp, (213) 788-4541 3/30/21 - Michael Vanderley, (415)370-6395 3/30/21 - Richard Wynne, (310)785-4600 3/30/21 - Edward McNeilly, (310)785-4600 3/30/21 - Daniel Schecter: 424.653.5577
10:00 AM
3/30/21 Peter Gilhuly: 213.891.8720 3/30/21 - Nima Mohebbi 213.891.7482
3/30/21 - John Pyun: 213.891.8807
3/30/21 - Miri Gold: 424.653.5580
3/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Court recognizes that the debtor has appealed the January 22, 2021 state court judgment in favor of the Unatins and claims that entry of judgment in the Unatins' favor constituted a great miscarriage of justice. Nevertheless, the court takes judicial notice that a jury of 12 people, after a six-week jury trial, found in a lengthy and detailed verdict form that the Unatins were entitled to judgment in their favor on their claims against the debtor for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and conversion and that the debtor's wrongful acts were done with malice, oppression and/or fraud. The state court also issued a statement of decision describing the jury's findings as follows: "On Verdict Form 1, the jury found in favor of Mrs. Unatin and against Mr. Gavrielli on all of her claims: breach of fiduciary duty regarding the Company, breach of fiduciary duty regarding the outside investments, fraud, conversion, breach of contract, and breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing. The jury also found that Mr. Gavrielli "engaged in malice, oppression and/or fraud with respect to each of Mrs. Unatin's tort claims."
On these facts, the court is seriously concerned that the debtor cannot be relied upon to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. As a result, it is difficult for the court to defer to the business judgment of the debtor in possession with regard to such matters as the structure of its plan of reorganization or to rely upon the accuracy or adequacy of information contained in the debtor's disclosure statement.
10:00 AM
The state court findings constitute sufficient cause for this court to appoint a chapter 11 trustee under Bankruptcy Code section 1104. Accordingly, court will issue an order to show cause why a chapter 11 trustee should not be appointed in this chapter 11 case and set a hearing on that order for approximately three to four weeks. Continue hearing on debtor's disclosure statement for approximately 90 to 120 days to give any chapter 11 trustee appointed an opportunity to assess the debtor's financial situation and access to resources and to decide whether he or she supports the plan structure proposed by the debtor or whether he or she believes that more expedited payment arrangements for creditors should be pursued.
NOTE: A large portion of the debtor's response to the Unatins' objection to his disclosure statement is devoted to accusations of wrongdoing on the part of one or both of the Unatins. However, these accusations, even if true, have no tendency to prove that the debtor can be trusted to serve as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. Proof that the Unatins have misbehaved does not mean that the debtor hasn't. It is certainly possible that both the debtor and his sister are bad actors. Perhaps the Unatins should not be trusted either, but they aren't trying to serve as debtors in possession in this chapter 11 case.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
10:00 AM
Docket 38
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/24/21 - Najah Shariff, (213)894-2534
3/29/21 - Robert Klyman, (213)229-7562 3/30/21 - Jeffrey Resiner, (213)439-9452 3/30/21 - Joshua Taylor, (202)429-6281
3/30/21 - William Lobel, (714)549-7181
3/30/21 - Marshall Camp, (213) 788-4541 3/30/21 - Michael Vanderley, (415)370-6395 3/30/21 - Richard Wynne, (310)785-4600 3/30/21 - Edward McNeilly, (310)785-4600
10:00 AM
3/30/21 - Daniel Schecter: 424.653.5577 3/30/21 Peter Gilhuly: 213.891.8720 3/30/21 - Nima Mohebbi 213.891.7482
3/30/21 - John Pyun: 213.891.8807
3/30/21 - Miri Gold: 424.653.5580
3/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
3/18/21 -- Court approved stipulation extending deadline for committee to respond to motion for approval of disclosure statement.
See tentative ruling for matter no. 9.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
3/24/21 - Najah Shariff, (213)894-2534
3/29/21 - Robert Klyman, (213)229-7562 3/30/21 - Jeffrey Resiner, (213)439-9452 3/30/21 - Joshua Taylor, (202)429-6281
3/30/21 - William Lobel, (714)549-7181
3/30/21 - Marshall Camp, (213) 788-4541 3/30/21 - Michael Vanderley, (415)370-6395 3/30/21 - Richard Wynne, (310)785-4600 3/30/21 - Edward McNeilly, (310)785-4600 3/30/21 - Daniel Schecter: 424.653.5577
10:00 AM
3/30/21 Peter Gilhuly: 213.891.8720 3/30/21 - Nima Mohebbi 213.891.7482
3/30/21 - John Pyun: 213.891.8807
3/30/21 - Miri Gold: 424.653.5580
3/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
11:00 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
When will debtor be able to resolve corporate status issues? Will the parties need to engage in discovery as to whether the debtor is generally paying its debts as they become due? Is there a dispute as to the number of creditors?
Hearing required.
2/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 31, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 10, 2021.
3/1/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 31, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rogue Apparel Group Inc. Represented By
Anthony J Rothman Esq
2:00 PM
MOVANT: TOORAK CAPITAL PARNTERS, LLC. fr. 3-9-21
Docket 60
3/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
3/30/21 - Tanya Behnam, (310)556-6763
Tentative Ruling for March 9, 2021:
Court is not persuaded that there is a lack of adequate protection: the property is insured and there is no reason to believe that it is declining in value. Thus, relief from stay does not appear available under section 362(d) (1). With regard to section 362(d)(2), this is a chapter 11 case. Therefore, even if the debtor lacks equity in the property, relief from stay should not be granted if the property is necessary to an effective reorganization, which requires, among other things, that there be a reasonable prospect of
2:00 PM
reorganization within a reasonable period.
Movant claims that the debtor's plan cannot be confirmed over its objection and that it will object to the debtor's plan. Debtor has filed a plan and disclosure statement and that disclosure statement is set for hearing on March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. It would be more appropriate for the Court to analyze whether there is a reasonable prospect of reorganization within a reasonable period once the Court has had an opportunity to consider the debtor's disclosure statement and plan. Therefore, continue hearing on motion for relief from stay to March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to coincide with hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for March 31, 2021:
Revisit motion for relief after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
Movant(s):
Toorak Capital Partners, LLC Represented By Tanya Behnam
2:00 PM
Docket 57
3/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
3/30/21 - Tanya Behnam, (310)556-6763
Court has a number of questions and concerns with regard to the form of the debtor's plan and disclosure statement:
Plan and disclosure statement need to include some discussion of why the debtor brought a motion seeking to value the property at $880,000 if it now contends the property is worth only $700,000. What led to the filing of the motion in the first place? What led the debtor to change its mind as to value?
Treatment of Class 1(c) is confusing. The debtor is proposing to pay the secured claim in full in cash on the effective date. Description doesn't make any sense. According to the debtor, if the property is worth $700,000 and the debtor pays the senior liens (the PACE/HERO liens) in full in cash, and that leaves only $541,611.19 as the remaining value of the collateral, why is the debtor paying $650,000 in satisfaction of this claim? This would be more than 100 percent payout when the plan only provides a 5 percent distribution
2:00 PM
to unsecured creditors. It is inappropriate to pay senior classes more than payment in full.
Court rejects Toorak's argument about needing a court order for the PACE/HERO loans to be in first position. Court assumes that these loans were obtained prepetition. The structure of these loans is that they are repaid along with/with the same priority as real property taxes due with regard to the property. That is the way these loans are structured. They have the same priority as real property taxes.
Plan and disclosure statement need to provide more information about the contribution from Asiel Luna. According to the plan, his father is retaining his 100 percent ownership of the property notwithstanding the fact that the sun is supplying a new value contribution of $870,000. What is Asiel receiving? Is this a gift to the debtor? A gift to the debtor's father? A loan to the father? A loan to the debtor? The plan and disclosure statement need to specify, and court agrees that we need something more in the disclosure statement to demonstrate ability to pay than a mere statement to this effect. A copy of a bank statement with this amount on deposit or evidence of a line of credit, etc. would be appropriate.
Court agrees with Toorak that feasibility requires a finding that confirmation is not likely to be followed by the need for more liquidation or reorganization. The debtor is cashing out everyone on the effective date, so, provided the new value contribution is made, the court is not concerned about plan payments, but what is the debtor's game plan for moving forward? The debtor would then own the property free and clear. Will the reorganized debtor obtain new construction financing at that point? Will it be enough to complete the construction? The disclosure statement is utterly silent on what happens after confirmation.
What does Toorak claim is its correct unsecured claim amount? Even with the higher property valuation, Toorak is undersecured, so its claim will not include post-petition interest but it can include default interest up through and including the petition date.
At best, there are only two impaired classes -- class 1(c) (Toorak's secured
2:00 PM
claim) and Class 2 (the class of unsecureds). Even with the $311,000 claim amount currently in the disclosure statement for Toorak, Toorak holds a large enough class 2 claim to prevent this class from voting in favor of confirmation. Where is the debtor's impaired consenting class?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
Movant(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
2:00 PM
Docket 56
3/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
3/30/21 - Tanya Behnam, (310)556-6763
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
2:00 PM
Docket 1
3/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
3/30/21 - Tanya Behnam, (310)556-6763
11/24/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
L/D to serve bar date notice -- November 23, 2020 Bar date -- December 31, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- December 2, 2020 at 10:00 (no status report required)
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
Set deadline for filing plan of reorganization and continue status conference to date that can serve as date of hearing on disclosure statement.
2:00 PM
12/7/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with the following dates:
Cont'd case status conference -- February 24, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file plan and disclosure statement -- January 6, 2021 Hearing on disclosure statement -- February 24, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Requirement to file status report waived.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Continue case status conference to March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with debtor's disclosure statement. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 31, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: JP MORGAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2014-3 c/o US BANK TRUST
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Delaware Trustee
Docket 93
Zoomgov Appearance by:
3/22/21 - Megan Lees, (619) 794-0515
Deny request for relief under section 362(d)(1) due to existence of sizeable equity cushion, but grant motion under section 362(d)(2) (without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3)) as debtor lacks equity in the property.
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Joint Debtor(s):
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2014-3 Represented By
Robert P Zahradka
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
10:00 AM
MOVANT: ALLY BANK
Docket 12
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Lyndia Elizabeth Carter Represented By Marc A Goldbach
Movant(s):
Ally Bank Represented By
Marjorie M Johnson
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVAN: QUATTRO INVESTMENTS, INC.
Docket 35
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/31/21 - Kyra Andrassy, (714)445-1017
4/6/21 - Mel Aranoff, (818)451-4616
Movant would not be entitled to relief under section 362(d)(1), as, based on the numbers in the motion, lender has an ample equity cushion to provide adequate protection and there is no evidence in the motion that the property is declining in value, but lender did not move for relief under that section. With regard to request for relief under section 362(d)(2), it does not appear that debtor has any equity in the property (absent the consummation of transactions that have not yet occurred). Court is prepared to assume that this property is necessary to a reorganization, if there is to be a reorganization, but is the debtor likely to be able to reorganize within a reasonable period? (In other words, is the property necessary to an effective
10:00 AM
reorganization within a reasonable period.)
According to the debtor, the reorganization will include the sale or refinancing of the property. What, if any, progress has the debtor made toward this result? Has the debtor retained a broker? If not, why not? Have any lenders expressed any interest in a refinancing?
Court notes that lender holds a deed of trust with an assignment of rents. Movant's interest in the rents is also entitled to adequate protection. Debtor's property is occupied by the debtor's principal, who isn't paying any rents.
How/why is this appropriate?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
1369 Londonderry Estate, LLC Represented By Todd L Turoci
Movant(s):
Quattro Investments, Inc. Represented By Kyra E Andrassy
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01103 Nolan v. Spencer
fr. 6-30-20, 10-6-20, 1-12-21, 2-23-21
Docket 1
7/1/20 -- Court signed order setting discovery cutoff of September 30, 2020. Tentative Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Where is joint status report that should have been filed by September 22, 2020? Have parties completed their discovery? Does either party anticipate filing any pretrial motions? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Continue status conference to January 12, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than December 29, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021:
2:00 PM
Sanction counsel for each party $150 for (again) failing to file joint status report in a timely manner. What is the status of this action? Have the parties now completed discovery? If not, are they requesting an extension of the discovery cutoff? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation? If not, why not.
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Parties seem to be somewhat confused as to what was to be filed two weeks before the pretrial conference. A status report is due two weeks before a status conference. A joint pretrial order is due two weeks prior to a pretrial conference. The court scheduled a pretrial conference. The parties should have lodged a joint pretrial order two weeks before the pretrial conference. The court does not need a status report.
Impose sanctions of $250 on counsel for defendant for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint pretrial order.
Does plaintiff want to file an amended complaint? If so, set deadline for this purpose, take pretrial conference off calendar and schedule a status conference. If not, continue pretrial conference to give the parties a further opportunity to prepare a JOINT pretrial order.
3/31/21 -- Court granted plaintiff's motion to continue pretrial conference to July 6, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 21, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Defendant(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Gwendolyn Nolan Represented By
Lane M Nussbaum
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01169 Wang et al v. Chou et al
fr. 10-6-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/31/21 - Elvis Tran, (626)282-9797
Tentative Ruling for October 6, 2021:
Defendants have not filed response, and plaintiffs have taken their default. Plaintiffs have obtained relief from stay and are proceeding with state court litigation. Continue case status conference to April 6, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
Plaintiffs shall file updated status report not later than March 23, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 6, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 6, 2021:
2:00 PM
Plaintiffs have obtained relief from stay and are proceeding with state court litigation. Continue case status conference to February 8, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiffs shall file updated status report not later than January 25, 2022.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 6, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Chia Jung Chou Represented By Sam X J Wu
Defendant(s):
Chia Jung Chou Pro Se
Jesus Guillermo Orozco Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Jesus Guillermo Orozco Represented By Sam X J Wu
Plaintiff(s):
Jing Wang Represented By
James R Selth
Denny Koo Represented By
James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01669 Delco Products, LLC v. Marks
fr. 1-26-21
Docket 2
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/6/21 - Fredric Greenblatt, (818)992-1188
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on motion to dismiss.
Debtor(s):
Richard Marks Represented By Christopher J Langley
Defendant(s):
Richard Marks Pro Se
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Delco Products, LLC Represented By Fredric J Greenblatt Glenn M Solomon
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01669 Delco Products, LLC v. Marks
Docket 20
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/6/21 - Fredric Greenblatt, (818)992-1188
Deny motion to dismiss. If plaintiff can prove that defendant did not intend to pay for goods/knew he could not pay for goods at the time they were ordered, that could give rise to nondischargeable liability under section 523(a)(2)(A).
And, if movant can establish that, but for the subsequent conduct of defendant, it would have been able to recover goods worth $75,000, it may be entitled to a nondischargeable claim under section 523(a)(6). Set deadline for defendant to file and serve response to complaint.
Debtor(s):
Richard Marks Represented By Christopher J Langley
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Richard Marks Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Delco Products, LLC Represented By Fredric J Greenblatt Glenn M Solomon
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01025 Choi et al v. SALLIE MAE, a Delaware Corporation
Docket 1
Why did defendant file status report twice? If this is a unilateral status report, where is the declaration that should have accompanied the report? Issue OSC why adversary proceeding should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute based on plaintiff's failure to participate in preparation of joint status report.
Debtor(s):
Phillip G Choi Represented By Min W Suh
Defendant(s):
SALLIE MAE, a Delaware Represented By
Norman Norman Lueck
Joint Debtor(s):
Paula H Choi Represented By
2:00 PM
Min W Suh
Plaintiff(s):
Phillip G Choi Represented By Min W Suh
Paula H Choi Represented By
Min W Suh
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01117 Retail Capital Partners, LLC. v. Oh et al
Docket 42
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/6/21 - Joshua Herndon, (888)846-8901
Deny motion to dismiss. With regard to claim by Chae that he didn't sign the agreement, if he was the party to whom Oh had to look to obtain information and he knew that this information would be given to plaintiff to induce it to make the loan and that this information was false, he cannot avoid liability for fraud by keeping Oh in the dark and having her sign the documents.
Moreover, whether defendants knew the representations were false when they were made, whether the lender justifiably relied on the representations in making the loan, whether the defendants intended to use the loan proceeds for purposes that they knew were improper or intended to breach provisions of the loan agreement by taking out additional loans at the time they obtained the loan, etc. are all genuine issues of material fact, making the grant of summary judgment inappropriate. Whether or not defendants are likely to prevail at trial on some or all of these disputes is not the issue.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Defendant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
Joint Debtor(s):
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
Movant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
Plaintiff(s):
Retail Capital Partners, LLC. Represented By Joshua J Herndon
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01117 Retail Capital Partners, LLC. v. Oh et al
fr. 7-14-20, 11-3-20, 2-2-21
Docket 4
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/6/21 - Joshua Herndon, (888)846-8901
Why don't the parties want this matter sent to mediation? Hearing required. 8/11/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for November 3, 2020:
Did the parties participate in a mediation on October 27, 2020. If so, what was the outcome? If not, why not?
2:00 PM
If matter did not settle, set discovery cutoff for approxiamtely 120 days and final status conference for approximately same time frame.
11/13/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting continued status conference for February 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. and discovery cutoff for January 31, 2021. Parties should file joint status report not later than January 19, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
Parties report that discovery is complete. Set a deadline for filing any pretrial motions and a date for pretrial conference.
2/5/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- April 6, 2021 at 2 L/D to file pretrial motions -- February 23, 2021
L/D to have pretrial motions heard -- April 6, 2021
Tentative Ruling for April 6, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Defendant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
Joint Debtor(s):
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
2:00 PM
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
Plaintiff(s):
Retail Capital Partners, LLC. Represented By Joshua J Herndon
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01142 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. v. Slotkin
fr. 8-25-20, 12-1-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/31/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275 3/31/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 3/31/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
3/31/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
Set discovery cutoff and continue status conference for approximately three to four months.
8/28/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting discovery cutoff for February
2:00 PM
26, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Are parties requesting extension of February discovery cutoff? Hearing required.
12/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Status conference continued to April 6, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- March 23, 2021 Discovery cutoff extended to July 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 6, 2021:
What, if any, progress has been made in this action since the last status conference? Has any discovery been conducted? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01134 People Of The State Of California v. Slotkin
U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(7)
Docket 18
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/31/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275
4/6/21 - Wendy Loo-Smart, (310)753-9852
Grant in part. Make finding that all amounts due, other than payment for lab costs in the amount of $5,185.05, are nondischargeable under Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(7).
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Pro Se
2:00 PM
Movant(s):
People Of The State Of California Represented By
Wendy A Loo
Plaintiff(s):
People Of The State Of California Represented By
Wendy A Loo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01134 People Of The State Of California v. Slotkin
fr. 8-4-20, 12-1-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/31/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323)701-2275
4/6/21 - Wendy Loo-Smart, (310)753-9852
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Where is joint status report that should have been filed two weeks before status conference? Discuss with parties whether complaint needs further amendment to specify facts upon which certain of the claims are based.
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
2:00 PM
Court will strike first and second claims for relief. Continue status conference to December 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by November 17, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Court has no reason to believe that the underlying bankruptcy case is likely to be dismissed at any point in the near future. Set discovery cutoff for approximately 4 months. Set further status conference for approximately same time frame.
Tentative Ruling for April 6, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on motion for summary judgment.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
People Of The State Of California Represented By
Wendy A Loo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 14
Debtor has now filed certificate of credit counseling, but that certificate reflects that counseling occurred post-petition, and debtor has not requested or obtained an exemption from prepetition credit counseling requirement. As debtor did not complete credit counseling within the 180 days before the commencement of the bankruptcy case, debtor is not eligible to be a debtor in this bankruptcy case.
Dismiss case. (Nothing precludes this debtor from refiling, but new filing would be debtor's second bankruptcy case within a year, meaning that automatic stay will terminate within 30 days unless debtor moves for and obtains an extension.)
Debtor(s):
Ali H Alamin Represented By
Rosie Barmakszian
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 52
1/26/21 - Amended Motion filed. 3/4/21 - Amended Motion filed.
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/7/21 - Andrew Goodman, (818)802-5044
1/21/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 24, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 27, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Hearing was continued by stipulation in light of service issues. Amended motion was reserved on creditor and creditor's attorney, but was not served on Judge Bluebond or on the address on the abstract of judgment attached to
10:00 AM
the motion. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2021:
Schedule evidentiary hearing (via Zoom) for the parties to cross-examine one another's experts as to the value of the property.
Debtor(s):
Samvel Gukasyan Represented By Armen Shaghzo
Movant(s):
Samvel Gukasyan Represented By Armen Shaghzo
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 739
3/15/21 - Trustee filed Amended Notice of Hearing. Hearing rescheduled to APRIL 7, 2021 @ 10AM;
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/2/21 - Sharon Weiss, (310)576-2276
4/2/21 Emily Jordan, (310)576-2276 4/7/21 - Charles Marshall, (619)807-2628 4/7/21 - John Menchaca, (213)683-3317
Rulings on Trustee's Evidentiary Objections:
Sustain. This is argument, not testimony.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sutain. This is argument, not testimony.
10:00 AM
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of personal knowledge.
Sustain. Best evidence rule.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of foundation. This is argument, not testimony.
Sustain. Lack of personal knowledge, lack of foundation.
Overrule as to fact that he obtained appraisal. Sustain (best evidence rule) as to what appraisal says.
Sustain. Lack of foundation. Not relevant.
Sustain. This is argument, not testimony.
Overrule as to what debtor is requesting. Sustain as to debtor's opinion as to which offer is better, based on lack of foundation.
Tentative Ruling on merits:
Overrule debtor's objection and approve compromise. Debtor had more than ample opportunity to control the administration of this estate. The court is prepared to defer to the trustee's business judgment that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush, particularly where, as here, the bird in the bush has demonstrated that he cannot be relied upon to make required periodic payments. The proposed settlement offers certainty and closure.
Debtor(s):
Samuel Michael Saber Represented By Charles T Marshall
Movant(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Elissa Miller
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Elissa Miller
10:00 AM
Docket 118
3/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving motion. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Movant(s):
United States Trustee (LA) Represented By Eryk R Escobar
10:00 AM
Docket 98
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
10:00 AM
fr. 3-10-21
Docket 42
NONE LISTED -
It is not the case that appointment of a trustee moots this motion. Debtor only owns a portion of the title to the affected real property as a tenant in common. There are three other owners who are not in bankruptcy. The receiver was not appointed for the debtor. The receiver was appointed to take charge of the property. It makes no sense to have the receiver controlling three of the undivided interests in the property and the debtor's trustee controlling the other. If there are concerns about the choice of Mr. Leslie as the receiver, the court will grant relief from stay to permit the trustee that the court will appoint in response to the motion on calendar as number 4 to litigate those concerns on behalf of the debtor, should he or she elect to do so.
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III- Represented By
Marsha A Houston
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Christopher O Rivas
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
3/25/21 - Caroline Djang, (949)263-6586
Continue case status conference to May 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with other hearing scheduled for that date. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
11:00 AM
fr. 2-15-17, 8-30-17, 2-28-18, 6-13-18, 12-12-18, 4-17-19, 8-28-19, 2-5-20,
6-3-20, 10-7-20
Docket 1
Final Ruling for April 17, 2019:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue case status conference to August 28, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report accompanied by declaration not later than August 16, 2019. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 17, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for August 28, 2019:
Has the debtor now paid the July and August 2019 payments? If not, when will these payments be made? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for February 5, 2020:
Continue case status conference to June 3, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not
11:00 AM
later than May 22, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 3, 2020:
Continue case status conference to October 7, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than September 25, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 3, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 7, 2020:
Continue case status conference to April 7, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than March 29, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 7, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2021:
Court needs to discuss the status report with counsel for the debtor. There are several dates in the status report that appear to be typographical errors, making it difficult to understand what the report is saying. Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Hansen Freightlines Incorporated Represented By
David L. Neale Krikor J Meshefejian
11:00 AM
fr. 10-15-14, 10-29-14, 11-5-14, 1-14-15, 5-20-15, 7-22-15, 10-14-15, 2-10-16,
2-24-16, fr. 3-30-16, 5-11-16, 8-3-16, 9-14-16, 9-28-16, 12-14-16, 2-1-17,
5-3-17, 6-7-17, 8-2-17, 8-30-17, 2-28-18, 7-18-18, 9-5-18, 10-24-18, 11-28-18,
12-19-18, 6-19-19, 12-18-19, 3-18-20, 7-22-20, 10-21-20, 12-16-20
Docket 1
Several parties appear interested in purchasing the debtor's real properties. Debtor should notice sales of these properties subject to overbid even without having first selected a stalking horse bidder. Interested parties competing with one another to purchase these properties should produce highest and best offer as among current prospective purchasers. Set deadline for debtor to bring motion for approval of sales of all properties. Court will enter order appointing trustee if motion to approve sale is not brought by deadline imposed by the Court.
8/3/15 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd hearing on motion to appoint trustee and for relief from stay -- October 14, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.
11:00 AM
L/D to file and serve motion for authority to sell Albany Properties -- August 12, 2015
L/D to file application to employ broker(s) (or include within sale motion) -- August 12, 2015
Sale hearing -- October 14, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for October 14, 2015:
If Albany sale closes, will debtor be in a position to file plan? Hearing required.
1/4/16 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 24, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 6, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2016:
If Albany sale closes, will debtor be in a position to file plan? Hearing required.
3/21/16 -- Court signed order continuing hearing to May 11, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 30, 2016.
4/25/16 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 3, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 11, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for August 3, 2016:
According to the docket, the parties settled this matter during a settlment conference held June 13, 2016 before Judge Jury. What has happened since then? Will there be an amended plan? What is the status of this matter?
Tentative Ruling for September 14, 2016:
Continue to September 28, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with substantive motions set for hearing at that date and time. OFF CALENDAR
11:00 AM
FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for September 28, 2016:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearings on related matters.
Tentative Ruling for December 14, 2016:
Continue to February 1, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with hearing on amended disclosure statement. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 14, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for February 1, 2017:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
4/26/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 7, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 3, 2017. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
6/2/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 2, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 7, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for August 30, 2017:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of confirmation hearing.
Tentative Ruling for February 28, 2018:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Page 6 of that report states that all class 6 claimants have received payments other than Jeffrey Thomas. Has the reorganized debtor been depositing payments on account of this disputed claim into a disputed claim reserve? Hearing required.
7/16/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to September 5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 8, 2018.
11:00 AM
8/31/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 24, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 5, 2018.
10/18/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to November 28, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 24, 2018.
11/21/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 19, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 24, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for December 19, 2018:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue case status conference to June 19, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report, accompanied by declaration, not later than June 5, 2019. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 19, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for June 19, 2019:
The plan confirmation hearing was August 30, 2017, yet debtor's counsel still has not filed his final fee application. Why not? Is there any reason for this delay? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 18, 2019:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to March 18, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than March 4, 2020.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 18, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for March 18, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to July 22, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than July 10, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 18, 2020.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for July 22, 2020:
According to the reorganized debtor's status report, debtor is delinquent on payments due McHugh for the class 2, 3 and 4 claims "for the month of April 2020." What about the months of May, June and July? Is the reorganized debtor also delinquent on the payments for those months? Has the debtor had any discussions with the holder of these claims and, if so, have the parties agreed to anything? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for July 22, 2020:
Parties are in negotiations about a forebearance. Continue hearing to October 21, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report by October 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Status report was filed late. The emails attached to the status report predate the last status conference. What, if anything, has been accomplished with regard to the McHugh negotiations since the July status conference? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Continue hearing to December 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file and serve updated status report by December 4, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 16, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to April 7, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than March 26, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 16, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2021:
11:00 AM
Where is status report that should have been filed by March 26, 2021? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Albany Investment Properties, LLC Represented By
Raymond H. Aver
R Alexander Comley
11:00 AM
fr. 8-17-16, 11-1-16, 2-15-17, 5-10-17, 5-17-17, 6-14-17, 8-30-17, 9-6-17,
2-28-18, 5-30-18, 11-28-18, 5-29-19, 12-4-19, 6-3-20, 7-15-20, 8-26-20, 12-9-20
Docket 1
Set bar date and deadline for filing objections to claims. Set deadline for filing plan and disclosure statement.
6/17/16 -- Court granted application for bar date. Deadline to serve notice of bar date -- August 20, 2016. Bar date -- October 31, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for November 1, 2016:
Set deadline for filing plan and disclosure statement in approximately 90 days. Continue case status conference to date scheduled for hearing on disclosure statement.
11/4/16 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to file plan and disclosure statement -- December 28, 2016
11:00 AM
Hearing on disclosure statement -- February 15, 2017 @ 2:00 p.m. Cont'd status conference -- February 15, 2017 @ 2:00 p.m.
8/14/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to September 6, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 30, 2017. Tentative
Ruling for February 15, 2017:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for September 6, 2017:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Tentative Ruling for February 28, 2018:
It appears that the debtor's revenues have been decreasing each month. What is going on and how long will the debtor be able to sustain operations and continue to make plan payments if this continues? Hearing required.
Final Ruling from February 28, 2018:
Continue status conference to May 30, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than May 21, 2018. Debtor's principal should appear in person at continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for May 30, 2018:
Debtor's situation appears to have improved since February. Continue case status conference to November 28, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than November 16, 2018. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 30, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for November 28, 2018:
Papers filed and served less than 14 days before a hearing need to be transmitted to the judge by a more expedited means than US Mail so that the Court is not required to print its own copy of the papers. Debtor's situation
11:00 AM
appears to have improved since last status conference. Continue case status conference to May 29, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than May 15, 2019. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 28, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for May 29, 2019:
Continue post-confirmation status conference to December 4, 2019 at 11:00
a.m. Reorganized Debtor should file updated status report not later than November 20, 2019. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 29, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 4, 2019:
Continue post-confirmation status conference to June 3, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized Debtor should file updated status report not later than May 22, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 3, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for June 3, 2020:
Even though counsel has only been able to communicate with his client via email, he should be able to obtain the information necessary to draft an updated status report accompanied by a declaration by someone with personal knowledge advising the court about the status of the debtor's payments under the plan and when the debtor believes that it will be in a position to make up any delinquent payments. Continue status conference to July 15, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file status report accompanied by declaration by someone with personal knowledge not later than July 2, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 3, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 15, 2020:
Where is the status report and accompanying declaration that should have been filed by July 2, 2020? Is debtor current on its plan payments? Will debtor be able to continue performing under plan? Are debtor's principals communicating with counsel? Hearing required.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for July 15, 2020:
Reorganized debtor has not filed quarterly reports for first and second quarter and did not file required status report and declaration. Continue hearing to August 26, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file status report (supported by a declaration by someone with personal knowledge) not later than August 14, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 26, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue case status conference to December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (accompanied by a declaration from someone with personal knowledge) not later than November 30, 2020.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 26, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court received status report on December 7, 2020. Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue case status conference to April 7, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (accompanied by a declaration from someone with personal knowledge) not later than MARCH 26, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2021:
Continue status conference to April 21, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with reorganized debtor's motion for a final decree. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
TCC General Contracting, Inc. Represented By Steven R Fox
Amelia Puertas-Samara
W. Sloan Youkstetter
11:00 AM
fr. 3-14-18, 6-13-18, 8-1-18, 10-2-18, 12-12-18, 2-6-19, 2-27-19, 4-17-19,
5-29-19, 8-27-19, 10-2-19, 12-18-19, 1-9-20, 5-6-20, 11-4-20, 12-16-20
Docket 1
Set bar date and deadline for serving notice of bar date. Has debtor filed motion for authority to use cash collateral? If not, why not? Has debtor been paying expenses in the interim? Debtor has proposed August 15 as the deadline for filing a plan. What has to happen before debtor will be in a position to file a plan? Hearing required.
3/19/18 -- Court signed order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- June 13, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. L/D to serve notice of bar date -- March 21, 2018
Bar date -- May 31, 2018
L/D to file joint status report -- June 5, 2018
L/D to file plan and disclosure statement -- June 29, 2018
Tentative Ruling for June 13, 2018:
11:00 AM
Set deadline for debtor to file either objection to claim filed by first trust deed holder or adversary proceeding against first trust deed holder. Continue status conference to date that can be used as date of hearing on disclosure statement.
Final Ruling for June 13, 2018:
Continue case status conference to August 1, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by July 30, 2018 and plan and disclosure statement by September 17, 2018. Debtor should file either adversary proceeding or claim objection with regard to bank's claim not later than July 13, 2015. (Court later extended that date to August 3, 2018 in response to debtor's motion by order entered July 17, 2018.)
Tentative Ruling for August 1, 2018:
Debtor in her status report states that she is currently preparing an adversary proceeding against Center Street Lending for the purpose of determining the correct amount of the balance due under the loan. Continue status conference to date of status conference in that new action.
Tentative Ruling for October 2, 2018:
This case is going nowhere until debtor files her adversary proceeding against her lender. Did debtor file the adversary proceeding by the September 28 deadline? If not, convert case to chapter 7. If so, continue case status conference to date of status conference in adversary proceeding.
Tentative Ruling for December 12, 2018:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for February 6, 2019:
Discuss with parties whether it would be better for the court to appoint a chapter 11 trustee or to convert the case to chapter 7. Hearing required.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for April 17, 2019:
If court approves disclosure statement, set plan confirmation schedule.
Tentative Ruling for May 29, 2019:
At hearing held April 19, 2019, Court conditionally approved disclosure statement and directed debtor to file final version of plan and disclosure statement and lodge order approving disclosure statement by April 30, 2019. Docket does not reflect the filing of an amended plan or disclosure statement. Why not?
Hearing required.
6/3/2019 -- Court approved fourth amended disclosure statement and set status conference on confirmation process for August 27, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for October 2, 2019:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Tentative Ruling for December 18, 2019:
Continue case status conference to January 9, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with confirmation. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 18, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for January 9, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of confirmation hearing.
Tentative Ruling for May 6, 2020:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue case status conference to November 4, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file
11:00 AM
updated status report not later than October 23, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 6, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for November 4, 2020:
The status report says that "Per the Court's order for a status conference report, Debtor will file her declaration following this status report . . . . " Where is the declaration? This should have been filed by October 23, 2020, but was not. Hearing required.
Final Ruling for November 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to December 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than November 25, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 16, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to April 7, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than March 26, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 16, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2021:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to October 13, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than October 1, 2021, if final decree has not been entered by that date. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 7, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Denise Latrice Wheeler Represented By
Anthony Obehi Egbase Crystle Jane Lindsey Lionel E Giron
Joanne P. Sanchez
11:00 AM
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/7/21 - Louis Esbin, (661)305-8995
Tentative Ruling for December 4, 2019:
Debtor owns 80 percent of the Real Property as a tenant in common with whom? Do the managing member's parents own the other 20 percent as joint tenants? And the debtor itself is 80 percent owned by George Gabriel and 20 percent owned by his father? When was the deed of trust held by Tymeout recorded in the first place? What were the proceeds of the loan used for?
Set bar date and deadline for serving notice of bar date.
12/11/19 -- Court approved order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- 12/13/19
Bar date -- 1/31/20
Cont'd case status conference -- 03/04/20 at 11:00 a.m.
11:00 AM
L/D to file updated case status report -- 02/21/20.
Tentative Ruling for March 4, 2020:
Status report was filed late (on February 27, 2020). Discuss with debtor pending litigation in state court concerning the parties' respective priorities. Set deadline for debtor to commence litigation in this court to resolve these issues. Explore whether ordering the parties to mediation would be useful.
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 1, 2020:
What is currently happening at the property? Who is collecting rents? Are tenants paying rent? Did debtor seek and obtain any stays pending appeal? Hearing required.
NOTE: There are a number of inaccurate or misleading statements in the case status report. For example, there is no mention made of the prior in rem order for relief.
Instead, the report makes it appear that the first time Tymeout obtained relief from stay was in the April 28, 2020 order, which was not the case. And the statement that the debtor, "of course" obtained a stay of the foreclosure proceedings by filing this case is inconsistent with the court's prior rulings in this matter.
Tentative Ruling for October 7, 2020:
Discuss with the parties whether to grant the debtor's request that the debtor and Tymeout be ordered to mediation. Hearing required.
10/16/20 -- Court approved order directing parties to complete a day of mediation not later than January 5, 2021 and setting the following additional dates:
Cont'd case status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 L/D to file updated case status report -- December 27, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- October 26, 2020. (If Tymeout fails to cooperate in selection of mediator, debtor may file declaration to this effect and lodge unilateral order appointing mediators of its choosing. If Tymeout fails to participate in mediation, debtor should file declaration to this effect and court will issue an order
11:00 AM
to show cause why Tymeout should not be held in contempt.) 11/13/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Court has not approved a settlement agreement, so it is not in a position to issue an order to show cause why someone should, or should not, be held in breach of that agreement. The debtor is a party to the proposed agreement. Does it intend to seek court approval of the agreement? If not, why not? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2021:
At debtor's request, continue case status conference to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give escrow an opportunity to close and debtor an opportunity to request dismissal of this case. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 7, 2021.
(NOTE: Court signed order granting motion for approval of global compromise on April 2, 2021.)
Debtor(s):
Grandview Hills LLC Represented By Louis J Esbin
11:00 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
12/17/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court advised parties that this status conference would be called at 11:00 a.m. instead of 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Set deadline for service of notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
2/1/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- April 7, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
L/D to serve notice of bar date -- February 1, 2021 Bar date -- March 19, 2021
L/D to file updated status report -- March 26, 2021
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
2:00 PM
Docket 19
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Leigh DeLaFuente Represented By James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Patrick McGinnis Fritz (TR), Trustee, Period: 3/13/2020 to 2/3/2021
[Fees requested: $14,501.50, Expenses: $367.21]
Docket 115
Overrule debtor's objection and allow fees of $14,501.50 and costs of
$367.21 on a final basis. Court retains jurisdiction (even if the order of dismissal does not expressly so state) to rule on fee issues after dismissal, and subchapter V trustee was required to continue performing services even after initial abstention until final closure of case. Parties need not appear if debtor is prepared to submit on tentative ruling. (Debtor should let subchapter V trustee and court know whether or not it would like to be heard on tentative ruling.)
4/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving debtor's objection. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Joffe Emergency Services Represented By Stella A Havkin
2:00 PM
Movant(s):
John-Patrick McGinnis Fritz (TR) Represented By
John-Patrick M Fritz
Trustee(s):
John-Patrick McGinnis Fritz (TR) Represented By
John-Patrick M Fritz
10:00 AM
#1.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
3/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving motion. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Carolyn Jane Parham Represented By Michael R Totaro
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA.
Docket 15
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
ANARBOL RODRIGUEZ Represented By Emilia N McAfee
Joint Debtor(s):
ADRIANA RODRIGUEZ Represented By Emilia N McAfee
Movant(s):
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. Represented By
Joseph C Delmotte
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: HARVEY SCHONBRUN
Docket 18
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
Enter order confirming that no stay is in effect because this is the third bankruptcy case pending within the year. In addtion, grant motion under section 362(d)(4), including waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3). Make finding that bankruptcy case was part of a scheme to hinder, delay and defraud creditors that included multiple bankruptcy filings affecting this property.
Debtor(s):
Wichit Chantharath Pro Se
Movant(s):
Harvey Schonbrun Represented By Leslie A Cohen
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# 1HGCR2F77GA152723
MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER, USA, INC.
Docket 12
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Sheryl Ith, (714)431-1029
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Rosio Alfaro Represented By
Frank J Alvarado
Movant(s):
Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Sheryl K Ith
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# 3N1AB7AP7JY257119 MOVANT: BANK OF THE WEST
Docket 16
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Mary Tang, (925)678-1876
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Ana Bertha Chavez Martinez Represented By Christopher J Lauria
Movant(s):
BANK OF THE WEST Represented By
Mary Ellmann Tang
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# 1GCR CREH 4EZ2 42861
MOVANT: MECHANICS BANK AUTO FINANCE
Docket 8
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Keith Higgenbotham, (213)620-0176
Contrary to representation made in motion, statement of intent does not reflect intention to surrender vehicle. Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Janelle Raylina Linares Represented By Daniel King
Movant(s):
Mechanics Bank Auto Finance Represented By Vincent V Frounjian
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: REDWOOD HOLDINGS, LLC.
Docket 12
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Sam Chandra, (626)305-0555
Case has been dismissed, but motion is not entirely moot, as movant seeks annulment (in case the defendant in state court litigation is the same individual as debtor). If movant would like to proceed with motion, continue hearing to give movant an opportunity to comply with court's "local local" rule re proceeding to hearing in dismissed cases.
(Movant served required notice. Grant motion, including annulment.)
Debtor(s):
Gonzalo Ramirez Mercado Jr Pro Se
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Redwood Holdings, LLC Represented By Sam Chandra
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01195 Dye v. Kim et al
fr. 10-27-20, 1-19-21
Docket 1
10/28/20 -- Court entered order denying motion to dismiss, setting deadline of November 30, 2020 for filing of answers to complaint and setting status conference for January 19, 2021. (Parties are to file joint status report not later than January 5, 2021.)
1/5/21 -- Court orally granted motion for default judgment against defendant Connie Kim. Action remains unresolved as against other defendants.
Tentative Ruling for January 19, 2021:
2:00 PM
Set discovery cutoff for late April, 2021. When will plaintiff be in a position to bring her motion for summary judgment? Hearing required.
1/22/21 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff -- May 17, 2021
Cont'd status conference -- April 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- April 6, 2021
If motion for partial summary judgment is filed by March 9, 2021, it may be heard at the same time as the status conference.
Tentative Ruling for April 20, 2021:
Status conference report represents that a motion for summary judgment will have been filed by the time of the status conference and will be set for hearing on May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Has such a motion been filed?
Discuss with parties issues surrounding scheduling of meet and confer and whether it makes sense to order this matter to mediation.
Debtor(s):
Eunho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang
Defendant(s):
Eunho Kim Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Eunho Kim as Trustee of the Eun Ho Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Kye Sik Moon Represented By Donald E Iwuchuku
2:00 PM
Selk Group, Inc., a California Pro Se
DOES 1 - 20, Inclusive Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Carolyn A. Dye Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01029 Moss Bros. Toyota v. Preciado, Jr.
fr. 4-13-21
Docket 1
3/30/21 - Notice of rescheduled hearing mailed to parties. Hearing rescheduled to APRIL 20, 2021 @ 2PM.
Docket does not reflect return of summons. Was summons and complaint served in a timely manner? If not, why not? If not, plaintiff needs to obtain replacement summons as original summons has become stale.
Debtor(s):
Victor Manuel Preciado Jr. Represented By Omar Zambrano
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Victor Manuel Preciado Jr. Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Moss Bros. Toyota Represented By Michael S Geller
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01157 Yoo v. Morga et al
fr. 9-15-20, 10-20-20, 12-8-20, 2-9-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/13/21 - Carmela Pagay, (310)229-1234
Set deadline for plaintiff to file request for entry of default and motion for entry of default judgment. Continue status conference to coincide with hearing on default judgment motion.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to September 14, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF
CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to December 8, 2020 at 2:00
2:00 PM
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than November 24, 2020 if matter has not been dismissed by then. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to February 9, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than January 26, 2021 if matter has not been dismissed by then. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
At request of trustee, continue status conference to April 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than April 6, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for April 20, 2021:
Set discovery cutoff for late summer. Why doesn't plaintiff want this matter sent to mediation? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Juanita Frances Lohran Represented By Timothy McFarlin
Defendant(s):
Teresa Ann Morga Represented By Timothy McFarlin
Juanita Frances Lohran Represented By Timothy McFarlin
Plaintiff(s):
Timothy J Yoo Represented By Carmela Pagay
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By
2:00 PM
Carmela Pagay
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01159 Yoo v. Kreimann et al
Complaint by Timothy J Yoo against Max Kreimann, Juanita Frances Lohran fr. 9-15-20, 10-20-20, 12-8-20, 2-9-21
Docket 1
4/19/21 - Carmela Pagay, (310)229-1234
Set deadline for plaintiff to file request for entry of default and motion for entry of default judgment. Continue status conference to coincide with hearing on default judgment motion.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to September 14, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF
CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to December 8, 2020 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than November 24, 2020 if matter has not been dismissed by then. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to February 9, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than January 26, 2021 if matter has not been dismissed by then. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
At request of trustee, continue status conference to April 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than April 6, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
3/25/21 -- Court granted motion for approval of compromise. (Lump sum payment due by March 31, 2021.)
Tentative Ruling for April 20, 2021:
Was settlement payment made when due? When will trustee be in a position to dismiss whit matter? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Juanita Frances Lohran Represented By Timothy McFarlin
Defendant(s):
Max Kreimann Pro Se
Juanita Frances Lohran Pro Se
Max Kreimann as Trustee of the Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Timothy J Yoo Represented By Carmela Pagay
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By Carmela Pagay
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01103 Nolan v. Spencer
Docket 53
Grant motion. Give plaintiff to and including April 30, 2021 to file and serve amended complaint. Defendant should file and serve response to complaint within 21 days thereafter.
Debtor(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Defendant(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Movant(s):
Gwendolyn Nolan Represented By
Lane M Nussbaum
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Gwendolyn Nolan Represented By
Lane M Nussbaum
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01036 Rhino Bare Projects LLC et al v. Canico Capital Group, LLC et al
Docket 7
Why does this matter need to be heard in bankruptcy court? If this matter is "core" because it constitutes a counterclaim to the defendant's claim against the estate, it is nevertheless the kind of counterclaim that raised issues under Stern v. Marshall, no? Defendant has not consented to this court's entry of final orders and has demanded a jury trial. The claims do not arise as a matter of bankruptcy law. They relate to prepetition conduct and are based on state law. Grant motion to abstain. (Court can hold the claim objection in abeyance pending the outcome of the state court litigation.)
Continue hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters in the Rhino Bare case. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 20, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By
2:00 PM
Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Defendant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
West Best Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Abraham Assil Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Movant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
West Best Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Abraham Assil Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Plaintiff(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
fr. 1-14-21, 3-17-21
Docket 8
Tentative ruling for January 14, 2021:
Coversheet is blank. Part D is blank. What is the interest rate? How much are the payments? Deny approval as agreement is incomplete. Court does not have the information that it requires to approve agreement.
Final Ruling for January 14, 2021:
Debtor is behind on payments but does want to catch up. Continue hearing to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Is debtor now current on payments? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for March 17, 2021:
10:00 AM
Debtor reports that creditor said it couldn't accept payments because debtor was in bankruptcy. Court continued hearing to April 21, 2021 at 10:00.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Has debtor made any progress with lender? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Jennifer D Thomas Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 18
Discuss with debtors whether credit counseling occurred before or after petition was filed.
Debtor(s):
Esther Flores Lemus Represented By Christopher J Lauria
Joint Debtor(s):
Luis Ferrel Reynaga Represented By Christopher J Lauria
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
Vacate OSC as moot. Case has already been dismissed for failure to file documents. No appearance required. Court will prepare order.
Debtor(s):
Johnny Raymond Peterson Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 279
Grant motion. Enter final decree. Waive appearances. Reorganized debtor should lodge order consistent with tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
TCC General Contracting, Inc. Represented By Steven R Fox
Amelia Puertas-Samara
W. Sloan Youkstetter
Movant(s):
Law Offices of Steven R. Fox Represented By Steven R Fox
10:00 AM
fr. 8-17-16, 11-1-16, 2-15-17, 5-10-17, 5-17-17, 6-14-17, 8-30-17, 9-6-17,
2-28-18, 5-30-18, 11-28-18, 5-29-19, 12-4-19, 6-3-20, 7-15-20, 8-26-20,
12-9-20, 4-7-21
Docket 1
Set bar date and deadline for filing objections to claims. Set deadline for filing plan and disclosure statement.
6/17/16 -- Court granted application for bar date. Deadline to serve notice of bar date -- August 20, 2016. Bar date -- October 31, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for November 1, 2016:
Set deadline for filing plan and disclosure statement in approximately 90 days. Continue case status conference to date scheduled for hearing on disclosure statement.
11/4/16 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
10:00 AM
L/D to file plan and disclosure statement -- December 28, 2016 Hearing on disclosure statement -- February 15, 2017 @ 2:00 p.m. Cont'd status conference -- February 15, 2017 @ 2:00 p.m.
8/14/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to September 6, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 30, 2017. Tentative
Ruling for February 15, 2017:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for September 6, 2017:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Tentative Ruling for February 28, 2018:
It appears that the debtor's revenues have been decreasing each month. What is going on and how long will the debtor be able to sustain operations and continue to make plan payments if this continues? Hearing required.
Final Ruling from February 28, 2018:
Continue status conference to May 30, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than May 21, 2018. Debtor's principal should appear in person at continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for May 30, 2018:
Debtor's situation appears to have improved since February. Continue case status conference to November 28, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than November 16, 2018. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 30, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for November 28, 2018:
Papers filed and served less than 14 days before a hearing need to be
10:00 AM
transmitted to the judge by a more expedited means than US Mail so that the Court is not required to print its own copy of the papers. Debtor's situation appears to have improved since last status conference. Continue case status conference to May 29, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than May 15, 2019. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 28, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for May 29, 2019:
Continue post-confirmation status conference to December 4, 2019 at 11:00
a.m. Reorganized Debtor should file updated status report not later than November 20, 2019. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 29, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 4, 2019:
Continue post-confirmation status conference to June 3, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized Debtor should file updated status report not later than May 22, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 3, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for June 3, 2020:
Even though counsel has only been able to communicate with his client via email, he should be able to obtain the information necessary to draft an updated status report accompanied by a declaration by someone with personal knowledge advising the court about the status of the debtor's payments under the plan and when the debtor believes that it will be in a position to make up any delinquent payments. Continue status conference to July 15, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file status report accompanied by declaration by someone with personal knowledge not later than July 2, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 3, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 15, 2020:
Where is the status report and accompanying declaration that should have been filed by July 2, 2020? Is debtor current on its plan payments? Will debtor be able to continue performing under plan? Are debtor's principals
10:00 AM
communicating with counsel? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for July 15, 2020:
Reorganized debtor has not filed quarterly reports for first and second quarter and did not file required status report and declaration. Continue hearing to August 26, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file status report (supported by a declaration by someone with personal knowledge) not later than August 14, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 26, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue case status conference to December 9, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (accompanied by a declaration from someone with personal knowledge) not later than November 30, 2020.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 26, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
Court received status report on December 7, 2020. Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue case status conference to April 7, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (accompanied by a declaration from someone with personal knowledge) not later than MARCH 26, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2021:
Continue status conference to April 21, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with reorganized debtor's motion for a final decree. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
10:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Take status conference off calendar due to grant of motion for entry of final decree. No appearance required.
Debtor(s):
TCC General Contracting, Inc. Represented By Steven R Fox
Amelia Puertas-Samara
W. Sloan Youkstetter
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Set bar date and deadline for debtor to serve notice of bar date. Would it make sense for the court to order the debtor and the seller to mediation or are negotiations proceeding well on their own? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
BV Glendora LLC, a Colorado Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:00 AM
Docket 10
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/13/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)799-1622
The debtor has now filed a declaration in which he represents that no balance sheet, statement of operations or cash flow statements exist for him, as he is an individual. Debtor has now filed his 2019 tax returns.
Continue hearing on Court's OSC re dismissal to April 28, 2021 at 10:00 a..m. to be heard concurrently with creditor's motion to dismiss. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 21, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/13/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)799-1622
Where is the case status report? Continue case status conference to April 28, 2021 at 10:00 a..m. to be heard concurrently with creditor's motion to dismiss. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 21, 2021. (Debtor should file required status report before that date. See docket no. 11.)
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 38
Grant motion. Allow claim as a late-filed claim pursuant to section 726(a)(3). APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE SHOULD LODGE ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Growing Educators, Inc Represented By
Sanaz Sarah Bereliani
Movant(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Approving Compromise of Controversy Between BOBS, LLC and the Bankruptcy Trustee Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019; and, Amended Motion for Order:
Authorizing Chapter 7 Trustee to Abandon Real Property Located at 911 Loma Vista Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 per 11 U.S.C. Section 554
Docket 282
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - David Jacob (213)293-5931 4/15/21 - Rommy Shy (listen only) 4/15/21 - Barry Shy (listen only) 4/19/21 - Joshua Scheer, (949)263-8757
4/19/21 - Timothy Silverman, (619)990-1128 4/19/21 - Thomas Casey, (949)766-8787
10:00 AM
4/19/21 - Donald Fife, (626)792-0855
Tentative Ruling on the Merits:
Objecting party provided the court with a stack of paper six inches tall that was not bound in any way, with the possible exception of a rubber band. This is unacceptable and not in compliance with the court manual and local rules. Chambers staff was required to expend almost an hour two hole punching and ACCO fastening the stack.
Rulings on Trustee's Evidentiary Objections:
Objections to Debtor's Declaration:
(Court has numbered the evidentiary objections)
Sustain (hearsay).
Overrule as to authentication. (Debtor can testify that the attachments are the documents he received on such and such a date from so and so.) Sustain as to balance of objections. Court cannot accept contents of, or any representations contained within, any of the documents as evidence due to lack of foundation and presonal knowledge, expertise, etc.)
Overrule.
Sustain.
Sustain.
Sustain.
Ruling on Objection to Request for Judicial Notice:
Grant in part. Overrule objection to the extent that it objects to NVSI's request that the court take judicial notice of the fact that the documents attached to the request were filed in the above bankruptcy case and that the parties filing these documents have advanced the positions set forth in these documents. Sustain objection to the extent that the request asks that the court accept the truth of the contents of any of these documents.
Objections to Skylar Declartion: (Court has numbered objections.)
10:00 AM
Overrule, but court understands this testimony merely as a representation that the declarant has reviewed documents that bear these titles. Declarant lacks personal knowledge to actually testify that the documents are what they purport to be.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Overrule.
, 5. and 6. Overrule. There are no documents attached as exhibits to the declaration. Court does not understand this objection.
Tentative Ruling on Merits:
Court has combined its tentative rulings on all motions, as all motions are interrelated. Trustee cannot perform his obligations under the proposed compromise unless the Court reconsiders its motion compelling the trustee to consummate a sale to NVSI. Compromise contemplates the trustee's abandonment of the real property, so trustee could not perform her obligations under the compromise agreement unless the bankruptcy court authorizes the abandonment.
The key issue affecting all of these motions is whether or not the estate will be left with the obligation to pay $2.56 million in capital gains taxes if the trustee consummates the sale to NVSI, which in turn is affected by the debtor's basis in the property. It is worthy of note that any determination that this court may make as to the likelihood that the estate will owe capital gains taxes if the sale is consummated will not be binding on any taxing authority. This is not an adversary proceeding under Bankruptcy Code section 505.
The taxing authorities are not participating in these motions and have not had an opportunity to advance any arguments that they might make in response to the debtor's contention that his basis in the property may be $18,493,000 higher than the trustee originally believed. If this court denies the motion to abandon and requires the trustee to consummate the sale, the trustee will be the one required to litigate with the taxing authorities the extent to which the estate owes capital gains taxes.
With regard to the trustee's motion for reconsideration, even if the trustee is likely to ultimately prevail in litigation with taxing authorities as to the estate's obligation to pay $2.56 million in capital gains taxes, it is clear on this record that, at the time this court approved the sale to NVSI and directed the trustee
10:00 AM
to perform under the sale agreement, the court and all parties in interest were relying on the debtor's representation that the debtor would not owe any significant amount of capital gains taxes as a result of the sale. No one was aware that the estate would even have potential exposure to a tax of this magnitude.
(NOTE: Debtor states in his April 13, 2021 filings [docket no. 296, on page 2 at lines 19 through 21] that, at the time the debtor consulted with the trustee regarding his tax basis in the property, he failed to recall the details of the transaction by which he obtained ownership of the property. He then states that he recalled those details in mid-March and immediately divulged those details to the trustee on March 16, 2021. If the debtor did not recall the consideration he paid in exchange for the property until March of 2021, how/why was he in a position to represent that there would be no capital gains taxes when he filed the motion for authority to sell in September of 2020? What caused him to suddenly remember these details in March of 2021?)
And what issue will the trustee need to litigate in order to establish that the debtor's basis in the property is large enough to obviate the need to pay a large amount of capital gains taxes? The debtor seems to be assuming that he can simply add to his basis in the property the value of the business interests he claims to have transferred as part of the consideration for the sale, but it isn't that simple. Unless he treated the exchange of the business for the property as a taxable event and recognized and paid tax on any gain at that time, it is his basis in the business that would become part of his basis in the property, not the entire value of the business at the time of the sale.
And will the trustee need to hire an expert in the valuation of Russian businesses and/or conduct a forensic investigation of the business to ascertain the debtor's basis in the business in order to accurately calculate the amount of gain? Is it appropriate to require the trustee to consummate a transaction that will require the trustee to have to litigate an issue of this nature (and what would that cost)?
Certainly, the court was unaware of the fact that, when it approved the sale, it was subjecting the trustee and the estate to this expense and uncertainty.
The discovery of this exposure after the trustee was appointed qualifies as a
10:00 AM
significant newly-discovered fact sufficient to warrant reconsideration of the court's earlier orders approving and compelling performance of the sale to NVSI. Accordingly, grant motion to reconsider order compelling trustee to consummate sale. (Court is not concerned about the likelihood that such a ruling will chill bidding on future bankruptcy sales. This is a highly unusual fact pattern. To the best of the court's recollection, in its 20+ years on the bench, it has never found cause to reconsider and vacate an order approving a sale.)
If the court reconsiders and vacates the orders approving and compelling performance of the sale, the trustee would then be in a position to enter into a compromise with BOBs in lieu of a sale. In that context, the court is not required to adjudicate the merits of the litigation that the trustee might otherwise prosecute against BOBs. The court is required to evaluate the trustee's business judgment to enter into the proposed compromise in light of the A&C factors to assess whether the settlement is fair and equitable and in the best interests of the estate. These factors are (1) the probability of success in the litigation; (2) the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (3) the complexity of the litigation and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; and (4) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views in the premises. The proposed compromise easily satisfies this standard.
Litigation with BOBs is likely to be expensive and time consuming and the outcome is uncertain. The proposed settlement ensures a 100 percent distribution to all timely filed allowed administrative and unsecured claims. This is an excellent result and not one that would be assured if the compromise were not approved. Accordingly, the settlement is in the best interest of the estate and the compromise should be approved. In light of the foregoing, the court should grant the motion to authorize abandonment to permit the trustee to effectuate the compromise.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:00 AM
Reconsidering the Sale Order Entered December 16, 2020
Authorizing the Trustee to Distribute the Buyer's Deposit to the Buyer; and, Supplement to the Trustee's Previously Filed Motion to Reconsider the Enforcement Order Entered January 13, 2021
Docket 286
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - David Jacob (213)293-5931 4/15/21 - Rommy Shy (listen only) 4/15/21 - Barry Shy (listen only) 4/19/21 - Joshua Scheer, (949)263-8757
4/19/21 - Timothy Silverman, (619)990-1128
4/19/21 - Thomas Casey, (949)766-8787
Grant. See tentative ruling for matter no. 9.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
fr. 8-4-20, 9-30-20, 12-2-20, 1-6-21, 3-10-21, 3-17-21
Docket 81
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - David Jacob (213)293-5931 4/15/21 - Rommy Shy (listen only) 4/15/21 - Barry Shy (listen only) 4/19/21 - Thomas Casey, (949)766-8787
4/19/21 - Joshua Scheer, (949)263-8757
4/19/21 - Timothy Silverman, (619)990-1128
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
The Court has been closely monitoring the debtor's progress with regard to a
11:00 AM
sale of the property in this case and will continue to do so. This case was filed on February 12, 2020 and, within approximately a month, reality changed dramatically. Debtor may be excused for the fact that vigorous marketing efforts did not begin and yield fruit immediately; however, the Court's patience and understanding is limited. At some point in the very near future, the Court will begin to share the movant's frustration with the pace at which the debtor has marketed this property and will reach the conclusion that the debtor is indeed trying simply to retain his luxury lifestyle at no cost for as long as possible.
At this point, the Court is not yet ready to conclude that the case was filed in bad faith, but the proof will be "in the pudding." Continue hearing 60 to 90 days to see whether the debtor complies with the deadline that the court has established for the filing of a motion to sell the property.
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to September 30, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. No new briefing required or permitted.
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
If debtor files nonfrivolous motion to sell property by September 25, 2020, continue hearing to date of hearing on motion for authority to sell property. (Motion to conduct auction with release price at or near debtor's appraised value for the property will not suffice.) If debtor fails to file nonfrivolous motion for authority to sell by deadline established by the court for this purpose, revisit motion after conclusion of hearing on court's order to show cause.
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
Revisit motion after conclusion of hearing on sale motion.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Deny motion. If trustee concludes that a sale of the property cannot be
11:00 AM
consummated in a manner that would produce a benefit for the estate, trustee can abandon property or court can grant relief from stay. Dismissal of case is unnecessary and would not be in the best interest of any party other than movant.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
Continue to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters on calendar at that time.
3/12/21 -- Continue hearing to coincide with other hearings continued pursuant to stipulation to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
If court approves compromise, deny motion to dismiss. (See tentative ruling for matter no. 9.)
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
BOBS LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
MOVANT: BOBS, LLC.
fr. 8-4-20, 9-30-20, 12-2-20, 1-6-21, 3-10-21, 3-17-21
Docket 80
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - David Jacob (213)293-5931 4/15/21 - Rommy Shy (listen only) 4/15/21 - Barry Shy (listen only) 4/19/21 - Thomas Casey, (949)766-8787
4/19/21 - Joshua Scheer, (949)263-8757
4/19/21 - Timothy Silverman, (619)990-1128
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
11:00 AM
Grant motion to disqualify Rommy Shy as an expert witness. He may be qualified to perform an appraisal of the property, but he has not demonstrated that with the information contained in his declaration. With regard to the second argument advanced in the motion to strike -- that he should be disqualified because of his economic stake in the outcome -- the court recognizes that there is a difference between hiring a supposedly independent expert and then compensating that expert on a contingency basis and letting a party in interest who has the requisite expertise offer expert testimony. Court would not necessarily exclude testimony in the latter instance, but the existence of incentive and bias would certainly cause the court to take the incentives of the declarant into consideration in weighing the validity/accuracy of the testimony.
In light of the foregoing, the only admissible evidence currently in the record as to the value of the property is that supplied by the debtor -- an appraisal showing the value of the property at $26 million. There is no evidence that the property is declining in value, so, at present, the movant has not established that it is entitled to relief from stay under either section 362(d)(1) for lack of adequate protection or under section 362(d)(2).
However, as the court has previously explained, particularly in light of the limited resources that the debtor has to maintain the property pending the consummation of a sale, the property needs to be sold promptly. And the court will have an opportunity in connection with the sale process to determine whether the debtor's valuation is accurate. Toward this end, the Court entered a scheduling order on June 23, 2020, directing the debtor to file a motion to approve a sale of the property not later than September 25, 2020. (An order approving real estate brokers was entered on July 28, 2020.)
Based on this record, if the Court were to rule on the motion now, it would deny the motion without prejudice, but, if movant would prefer, court will continue hearing for approximately 60 to 90 days to see whether the debtor moves forward promptly with a sale of the property or whether relief from stay should be granted to prevent the debtor from further delaying this process. (See tentative ruling for matter number 7 for court's tentative ruling with regard to contention that relief from stay should be granted because case
11:00 AM
was filed in bad faith.)
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to September 30, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. No new briefing required or permitted.
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
If debtor files nonfrivolous motion to sell property by September 25, 2020, continue hearing to date of hearing on motion for authority to sell property. (Motion to conduct auction with release price at or near debtor's appraised value for the property will not suffice.) If debtor fails to file nonfrivolous motion for authority to sell by deadline established by the court for this purpose, grant motion.
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
If court grants sale motion, deny motion for relief from stay.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to give trustee appointed an opportunity to ascertain whether the sale should be consummated or whether relief from stay should be granted.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
Continue to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters on calendar at that time.
3/12/21 -- Continue hearing to coincide with other hearings continued pursuant to stipulation to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
11:00 AM
See tentative ruling for matter no. 9. If the court approves the compromise and the proposed abandonment of the property, this motion will be moot. Enter comfort order clarifying that, in light of abandonment, automatic stay will terminate as of the effective date of the abandonment.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
BOBS LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
[OST]
fr. 1-27-21, 2-24-21, 3-17-21
Docket 215
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - David Jacob (213)293-5931 4/15/21 - Rommy Shy (listen only) 4/15/21 - Barry Shy (listen only) 4/19/21 - Thomas Casey, (949)766-8787
4/19/21 - Joshua Scheer, (949)263-8757
4/19/21 - Timothy Silverman, (619)990-1128
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
11:00 AM
Court must resolve matter no. 6 first. If Court grants trustee's motion, reconsiders the sale order and authorizes the trustee to abandon the property, court cannot enter an order compelling the debtor to transfer the property. Once abandonment occurs, the property is no longer an asset of the bankruptcy estate and is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. (See, e.g., In re Grossinger's Assocs., 184 B.R. 429 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995) and cases cited therein.)
Although Court could hold the debtor in civil contempt for violating an order of this court, even after the underlying real property has been abandoned, movant has not requested that remedy in this motion, and that will not work in any event. If the Court grants the trustee's motion to reconsider and vacate the order that compels the debtor and/or the trustee to execute the sale documents in light of the newly-discovered tax liability, there will no longer be an order that compels the debtor to sign these documents.
Once the property is abandoned, movant can bring an action in state court for breach of contract and seek the remedy of specific performance, but there are at least two problems with this approach (other than the length of time it would take to compel performance). First, if the court reconsiders the order approving the sale as having been improvidently entered, the debtor will no longer be obligated to perform as it will be as if the court did not approve the agreement. Second, once the property has been abandoned, the automatic stay that prevents BOBS from proceeding with its foreclosure will terminate.
Although it may be that BOBS and the debtor will negotiate something that would permit the debtor to retain the property after abandonment, this will not resolve the first problem.
With regard to the movant's request for attorneys' fees, although there may be an exclusion from the mediation requirement, attorneys' fees may only be awarded under the contract to the prevailing party. If the Court vacates its prior order compelling performance of the contract, movant will no longer be the prevailing party in this dispute.
Therefore, it appears that this motion must be denied. If the Court denies the trustee's motion, this motion will be moot (except with regard to the request for attorneys' fees). If the Court grants the trustee's motion, the Court will be
11:00 AM
without jurisdiction to order the relief that movant seeks.
Final Ruling for January 27, 2021:
With the consent of the parties, continue hearing to January 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
See tentative ruling for matter no. 100. Hearing required.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00
a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
3/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00
a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
See tentative ruling for matter no. 9. Deny motion. (Order can include provisions requiring trustee and escrow to refund movant's deposit.)
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
NVSI, INC., its successors and/or Represented By
Joshua L Scheer Timothy J Silverman
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
Authorizing Chapter 7 Trustee to Abandon Real Property Located at 911 Loma Vista Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Per 11 U.S.C. Section 554
Authorizing Chapter 7 Trustee to Abandon Pending Adversary Proceeding Case No. 2:20-ap-01623-BB Per 11 U.S.C. Section 554
Reconsidering the Enforcement Order Entered January 13, 2021 as to the Trustee
[OST]
fr. 1-27-21, 2-24-21, 3-17-21
Docket 207
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - David Jacob (213)293-5931 4/15/21 - Rommy Shy (listen only) 4/15/21 - Barry Shy (listen only) 4/19/21 - Thomas Casey, (949)766-8787
11:00 AM
4/19/21 - Joshua Scheer, (949)263-8757
4/19/21 - Timothy Silverman, (619)990-1128
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
The motion is silent as to the trustee's intentions with regard to the personal property located within the debtor's residence. Does the trustee seek authority to abandon that as well? Is the Court correct in understanding paragraph 34 of the Donald Fife's declaration to mean that, after payment of sales taxes, closing costs and the debtor's exemption, the personal property would produce (if the sale were to proceed) net proceeds of $90,000?
The motion seeks authority to abandon the debtor's adversary proceeding against BOBS as well as the underlying real property. The nature of this litigation is such that the estate could not retain this litigation if it abandons the underlying real property, but court would like additional information concerning the representation made in the motion that the lawsuit is unlikely to produce sufficient value to enable the estate to pay the $2.56 million in estimated capital gains taxes. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to have the lender's claim treated as wholly unsecured due to problems with the documentation. Is the trustee persuaded that the estate is unlikely to prevail on this claim?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Trustee does not intend to abandon personal property. Court-ordered purchaser is willing to give the trustee more time to more fully analyze the capital gains taxes that would result from the sale, and the trustee is willing to explore whether there might be another alternative that would involve a compromise with BOBS. With consent of the parties, continue hearing to February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give the trustee more time to evaluate tax liability and explore prospect of a compromise.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
What, if any, progress has been made since the January 27 hearing? Hearing required.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00
a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
3/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00
a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Supplement to debtor's opposition is extremely difficult to read. Print is too light on .pdf version filed with the court. Perhaps debtor's counsel needs to change the toner on its printer?
See tentative ruling for matter no. 9. Grant motion.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
Docket 1
When will debtor be able to resolve corporate status issues? Will the parties need to engage in discovery as to whether the debtor is generally paying its debts as they become due? Is there a dispute as to the number of creditors?
Hearing required.
2/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 31, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 10, 2021.
3/1/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 31, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Continue status conference to May 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with stipulation re dismissal. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 21, 2021.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Rogue Apparel Group Inc. Represented By
Anthony J Rothman Esq
11:00 AM
fr. 12-12-18, 3-13-19, 6-12-19, 11-6-19, 2-19-20, 3-4-20, 5-21-20, 10-21-20
Docket 1
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Todd Arnold, (310)229-1234
Set bar date and deadline for serving notice of bar date. 12/17/18 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
L/D to serve notice of bar date -- December 14, 2018 Bar date -- February 8, 2019
Cont'd status conference -- March 13, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. L/D to file status report -- February 27, 2019
Tentative Ruling for March 13, 2019:
Are any prospective purchasers showing interest in the debtor's property? If not, how do the debtors explain this?
11:00 AM
Were there any surprises among the claims filed by the bar date? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 12, 2019:
Debtors do not need to continue answering all of the same questions from the original order setting status conference in their status reports. They can simply update the court on the status of the case and the debtor's intentions with regard to the future of the case.
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on surcharge motion. Set deadline for filing plan and disclosure statement for approximately 90 to 120 days.
6/18/19 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
L/D to file a plan and disclosure statement -- September 25, 2019 Hearing on disclosure statement -- November 6, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. Cont'd status conference -- November 6, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.
Requirement that status conference be filed is waived.
8/30/19 -- Court granted ex parte application to extend deadline to file plan and disclosure statement to December 20, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for November 6, 2019:
Is debtor on track to be able to file its plan by December 20, 2019? If not, why not? Hearing required.
11/13/19 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
New deadline for debtor to file plan and disclosure statement -- January 8, 2020
Hearing on disclosure statement -- February 19, 2020 at 2 Cont'd status conference -- February 19, 2020 at 2
11:00 AM
2/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 19, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 4, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for May 21, 2020:
If Court confirms plan, take case status conference off calendar and schedule post- confirmation status conference. Set deadline for reorganized debtor to file post- confirmation status report accompanied by a declaration from someone with personal knowledge as to the status of the payments required under the plan.
Tentative Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue case status conference to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report accompanied by declaration from someone with personal knowledge not later than April 9, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 21, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Reorganized debtors filed status report due April 9, 2021 on April 20, 2021. Continue case status conference to October 13, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtors should file updated status report not later than October 1, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 21, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Herbert W. Gains Represented By Martin J Brill Todd M Arnold
11:00 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Beth A. Gains Represented By
Martin J Brill Todd M Arnold
11:00 AM
fr. 6-19-19, 9-18-19, 12-18-19, 4-1-20, 6-30-20, 8-26-20, 10-7-20, 12-16-20
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - Michael Berger, (310)271-6223
Set deadline for debtor to serve notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference approximately 90 days.
6/20/19 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- June 26, 2019
Bar date -- August 16, 2019
L/D to file updated status report -- September 6, 2019
Cont'd status conference -- September 18, 2019 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for September 18, 2019:
Does it make sense for the debtor to utilize the bankruptcy court's mediation
11:00 AM
program in an effort to resolve disputes with Creditor's Adjustment Bureau? Now that the debtor has succeeded in setting aside default judgment, is it even necessary for this case to remain in bankruptcy?
Hearing required.
9/19/19 -- Court approved scheduling order with the following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- December 18, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. L/D to file updated status report -- December 6, 2019
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- October 1, 2019 L/D to complete mediation -- December 18, 2019
10/2/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for December 18, 2019:
Has debtor filed an objection to the proofs of claim filed by State Compensation Insurance Fund and 1 West Capital, LLC? If not, why not? What is the debtor's game plan with regard to the claim of Creditor's Adjustment Bureau? Is it time to permit the state court litigation to proceed to a final judgment?
Hearing required.
12/20/19 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
1/6/2020 -- L/D for debtor to file objections to claims of State Compensation Insurance Fund and 1 West Capital;
3/20/2020 -- L/D for debtor to file updated status report 3/31/2020 -- L/D for debtor to file plan and disclosure statement 4/1/2020 at 11:00 a.m. -- Cont'd case status conference
3/27/20 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates:
L/D for debtor to file plan and disclosure statement -- June 30, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- July 1, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.
11:00 AM
OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 1, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2020:
Deadline to file plan set by the Court is June 30, 2020. Will debtor meet that deadline? If not, why not? Hearing required.
8/14/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing on disclosure statement to October 7, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Court continued case status conference to same date and time. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 26, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 7, 2020:
If court approves disclosure statement, continue case status conference to same date and time as confirmation hearing.
Tentative Ruling for December 16, 2020:
If court confirms plan, schedule post-confirmation status conference and deadline for filing post-confirmation status report.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue case status conference to October 13, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than October 1, 2021, if final decree has not been entered by then. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 21, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Marco General Construction, Inc. Represented By
Michael Jay Berger
11:00 AM
fr.10-16-19, 1-15-20, 3-18-20, 3-26-20, 6-3-20, 1-6-21
Docket 87
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/13/21 - DAvid Goodrich, (714)966-1000
10/21/19 -- Court approved scheduling order that set following dates:
L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 25, 2019 Bar date -- December 20, 2019
Con'd case status conference -- January 15, 2020 at 11 L/D to file updated status report -- January 3, 2020
Tentative Ruling for January 15, 2020:
Set deadline for debtor to file plan and disclosure statement and administrative bar date for all creditors other than professional persons. Set deadline for debtor to serve notice of bar date.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for March 26, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
If court confirms plan, take case status conference off calendar and set new post- confirmation status conference date and deadline for liquidating trustee to file status report.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Court has reviewed trust's post-confirmation status report. Continue post- confirmation status conference to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file updated status report not later than April 9, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 6, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Court has reviewed liquidating trustee's status report. Continue case status conference to October 13, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Liquidating trustee should file updated status report not later than October 1, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 21, 2021.
Debtor(s):
West Coast Distribution, Inc. Represented By Ron Bender Lindsey L Smith
Merhab, Robinson & Clakson, Law
11:00 AM
fr. 2-24-21, 3-17-21
Docket 165
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - Tom Mormandin, (714)547-2444
4/19/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798
4/19/21 - Zev Shechtman, (310)903-6344
4/19/21 - Elan Levey, (213)894-3997
4/20/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168 4/21/21 - Jonathan Wernick, (213)409-6237 4/21/21 - Seth Freeman, (213)409-6237
11:00 AM
2/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
3/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
At debtors' request, continue hearing on motion to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
fr. 12-17-20, 1-27-21, 2-24-21, 3-17-21
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - Tom Mormandin, (714)547-2444
4/19/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798
4/19/21 - Zev Shechtman, (310)903-6344
4/19/21 - Elan Levey, (213)894-3997
4/20/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168 4/21/21 - Jonathan Wernick, (213)409-6237 4/21/21 - Seth Freeman, (213)409-6237
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Court is confused. Is this really a cash collateral motion or is the debtor seeking approval for its proposed adequate protection programs in an effort to prevent lendors/lessors from seeking relief from stay with regard to its vehicles on the ground that they lack adequate protection?
In other words, where is the cash collateral? According to the motion and the accompanying declaration, when one of its vehicles is sold, the debtor is required to pay either all of the net proceeds to the lender/lessor or at least the portion of the net proceeds necessary to satisfy the balance due under the lease. (If the net proceeds are insufficient for this purpose, debtor will still owe the balance.) Does the debtor plan to start retaining the net proceeds generated from vehicle sales in violation of the contracts?
Do the relevant agreements make the post-petition rents that the debtor charges for the use of its vehicles proceeds that are subject to the lessor/lendor's security interests? Do any of the lenders have security interests in the payments the debtor receives under its governmental contracts? Does the debtor have other accounts receivable in which the lessors/lenders assert security interests? If not, is there any sense in which the debtor is planning to use cash collateral?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for December 17, 2020:
(See interim order entered December 18, 2020. Court authorized use of cash collateral on interim basis through the close of business on June 29, 2021 in accordance with budget plus a 10 percent variance. Final hearing set for January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Parties must refer to local rules and court manual and serve copies of papers filed on Judge Bluebond. Papers that are not served on the judge will not be considered (unless they are 25 pages or less in length). Papers filed less
11:00 AM
than two weeks prior to a hearing must be served using an expedited service method (overnight mail, FedEx, etc.)
First Source Bank complains in part that the proposed adequate protection payments are insufficient to compensate it for the depreciation in the value of the vehicles that form its collateral. This is a cash collateral motion. The court will only adjudicate in this context the extent to which the debtor's proposal does or does not provide adequate protection for the use of a lender's CASH collateral. To the extent that a lender believes the debtor is not providing adequate protection for depreciation in the value of a noncash item of collateral, it is free to bring a motion for relief from stay with regard to that item or category of collateral (or to negotiate other arrangements with the debtor). The grant of this motion will not resolve that issue.
Similarly, if a lessor claims that it holds a true lease of a vehicle and is therefore entitled to payments in accordance with its lease from and after the 60th day of this case, a decision by this court to grant the instant motion would have no affect on such rights. The debtor has not requested and the court is not considering whether to relieve the debtor of any obligation to make such payments.
To the extent that the debtor seeks authority to make adequate protection payments by way of this motion, approval of the motion will not constitute a finding that the proposed adequate payments actually provide adequate protection for the use of anything other than cash collateral.
Court remains concerned that debtor might be required to use cash collateral of one lender to make payments to a different lender if debtor intends to make adequate protection payments to a given lender that exceed the rents generated by that lender's collateral. Is it necessarily the case that this won't occur under the debtor's current proposal?
At the interim hearing, the court was able to determine from budget that any diminution in the cash collateral balances due to the debtors' use of these funds would be more than offset by the cash payments that the debtor would be making during the interim period. Does this remain the case during this period?
11:00 AM
Can it be argued that the court should apply equitable principles under section 552(b)(1) to treat only a portion of any post-petition rental payments received as proceeds of the lenders' prepetition collateral?
With regard to proceeds generated from sales of vehicles, turning over all net proceeds generated by the sale of the vehicle is, by definition, adequate protection for the lender's interest in these proceeds. But it should be noted that approval of this motion would not constitute authority for the debtor to sell vehicles out of the ordinary course or to depart from contractual obligations with regard to the procedures for selling vehicles. Pursuant to section 363 of the code, debtor can continue to use, sell or lease property in the ordinary course of business. If debtor wants to sell vehicles other than in the ordinary course of business, it will need to bring a motion requesting such relief.
Instant motion is not such a motion. Replacement liens should suffice to provide adequate protection for lenders with an interest in other forms of cash collateral.
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Authorize use of cash collateral through February 26, 2021 on same terms as previously authorized, plus additional terms read into record at time of hearing. Debtor will serve any additional papers not later than February 3, 2021. Oppositions will be due February 10, 2021. Replies will be due February 17, 2021. Final hearing on use of cash collateral set for February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
No additional papers have been filed in connection with continued use of cash collateral and hearing on substantive consolidation has been continued to March 17, 2021. What is the status of this matter? Have all objections been resolved? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for February 24, 2021:
11:00 AM
Continue hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Interim order to follow from debtor's counsel granting motion on interim basis and authorizing use of cash collateral on same basis through March 19, 2021.
3/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
What, if any, progress has been made toward resolving issues between the committee and the debtors concerning the debtors' budget and the allocations for committee's fees? What exactly is the committee looking for that it hasn't received? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
fr. 12-17-20, 2-10-21, 3-17-21
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - Tom Mormandin, (714)547-2444
4/19/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798
4/19/21 - Zev Shechtman, (310)903-6344
4/19/21 - Elan Levey, (213)894-3997
4/20/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168 4/21/21 - Jonathan Wernick, (213)409-6237 4/21/21 - Seth Freeman, (213)409-6237
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Why does the Bank of the West payroll account need to remain open?
Debtor needs to stop payment on any outstanding checks issued on accounts that remain open. To the extent that the Court authorizes the payment of prepetition amounts, new checks should be issued.
Merchant accounts should remain open for deposits only. Only disbursements the debtor should make from these accounts is to sweep amounts on deposit (net of any required reserves) to a DIP account.
There is a difference between the debtors' depositing all of their funds into, and paying all of their expenses from, a single concentration account and pooling funds in such a way as to permit receipts generated by one debtor to be used to pay expenses attributable to a different debtor. Absent substantive consolidation or an order approving a financing motion as between two or more debtor entities, one debtor's expenses should not be paid from revenues generated by a different debtor.
Subject to the foregoing, provided debtor supplies adequate proof of service, grant motion.
Final Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Court granted motion on interim basis through February 12, 2021. Final hearing set for February 10, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. (See interim order for more information.)
Tentative Ruling for February 10, 2021:
Resolve motion on the following terms to which the debtors and the US Trustee have stipulated:
If the substantive consolidation motion currently set for hearing on February 24, 2021 is denied: (A) the Debtors will wind down their cash management system within 30 days after entry of the order denying the substantive consolidation motion; and (B) the authority to use the Debtors’ Cash Management System should be extended to 30 days after entry of such order.
11:00 AM
On or before February 8, 2021, the Debtors will amend the December MOR to include "to/from" accounting. Thereafter, the Debtors will provide "to/from" accounting in all MORs until the first month after the Court enters an order granting substantive consolidation.
The Debtors will continue to maintain its single non-DIP Comerica bank account, to be used solely to pay the Debtors’ credit cards as authorized by the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order. The Debtors will not carry on deposit at any given time more than
$100,000 in the non-DIP Comerica bank account. If the Debtors’ balance on deposit in the non-DIP Comerica account exceeds the FDIC limit of $250,000 at any given time, the Debtors will obtain a surety bond in favor of the United States to collateralize any excess over the FDIC limit in an amount no less than 115%, based on the highest average daily balance. The Debtors will close the Prepetition Merchant Accounts and Prepetition Payroll Account, as those terms are defined in the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order, in a manner consistent with the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order.
3/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
As to AVR California and AVR Vanpool only, grant motion on a final basis.
As to AVR Georgia, AVR Nevada and AVR Texas, grant motion on an interim basis through and including June 18, 2021 and continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
Docket 306
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - Tom Mormandin, (714)547-2444
4/19/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798
4/19/21 - Zev Shechtman, (310)903-6344
4/19/21 - Elan Levey, (213)894-3997
4/20/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
4/20/21 - Haleh Naimi, (310)734-2677 4/20/21 - Randall Mroczynski, (714)431-1026 4/20/21 - Kim Gage, (714)431-1090
11:00 AM
4/21/21 - Jonathan Wernick, (213)409-6237
4/21/21 - Seth Freeman, (213)409-6237
The only party objecting to the proposed compromise is AFC, which claims to hold a senior security interest in vehicles that the debtors leased from, or acquired with financing from, MiFleet. MiFleet has now transferred or will be transferring its interests in the vehicles to NIE, with which the debtors want to enter into a compromise.
The debtors and NIE respond that AFC does not hold a perfected security interest in the vehicles because the only perfection method used was recordation of a UCC-1, which does not work where, as here, the debtors are not automobile dealers in the business of selling vehicles. The debtors are in the business of leasing vehicles. Based on the Official Comments to section 9-311 of the UCC, the fact that the debtors may eventually sell these vehicles does not mean that they are in the business of selling the vehicles for the purpose of section 9-311.
Moreover, either the debtors leased the vehicles from MiFleet or they acquired them with financing provided by MiFleet. (This is one of the issues being resolved by the compromise.) AFC concedes that, if the agreements are true leases, the debtor did not acquire title to the vehicles and AFC never held a security interest in the vehicles. On the other hand, if these agreements were disguised financing arrangements, they were nevertheless agreements that provided the financing under which the debtors acquired the vehicles. That is, they were purchase money financing agreements. MiFleet may have had a senior lien against these vehicles under this theory as well, if the appropriate steps were taken.
In either event, the Court is not in a position to adjudicate in this context whether and to what extent AFC holds an enforceable security interest against the vehicles. FRBP requires the use of an adversary proceeding to determine the validity, priority or extent of a lien against property of the estate. However, at most, AFC is entitled to adequate protection for the value of its
11:00 AM
interest in the vehicles and the court is satisfied that, based on these facts, the revisions to the proposed settlement outlined in the parties' reply briefs are sufficient to afford AFC adequate protection for the value of any interest that it may or may not hold in the subject vehicles.
Overrule AFC's objection and approve compromise.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - Tom Mormandin, (714)547-2444
4/19/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798
4/19/21 - Zev Shechtman, (310)903-6344
4/19/21 - Elan Levey, (213)894-3997
4/20/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
4/20/21 - Haleh Naimi, (310)734-2677 4/21/21 - Jonathan Wernick, (213)409-6237 4/21/21 - Seth Freeman, (213)409-6237
11:00 AM
12/17/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court advised parties that this status conference would be called at 11:00 a.m. instead of 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Set deadline for service of notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
2/1/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- April 7, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
L/D to serve notice of bar date -- February 1, 2021 Bar date -- March 19, 2021
L/D to file updated status report -- March 26, 2021
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
(Debtors need not continue answering the same questions in subsequent status reports. Debtors should include in its status report a general discussion of the status of the case and the debtors' efforts to reorganize their affairs.)
Now that a number of states have lifted or reduced restrictions and travel is increasing, has the debtors' business been improving? When are the debtors' projecting that their busines will have "normalized"? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
Docket 14
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - Michael Berger, (310)271-6223 4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Court agrees that, in two prior bankruptcy filings, debtor showed no willingness or ability to comply with the requirements necessary to properly prosecute a bankruptcy case and that this case got off to a shaky start as well. However, this time around, debtor has hired counsel who has handled chapter 11 bankruptcy cases before and may intend to conduct itself differently. It is too soon for this court to conclude that this chapter 11 case is doomed or that the debtor will fail to fulfill its responsibilities in this case. The proof will be "in the pudding," so to speak. Continue hearing on motion for approximately 90 days to see whether the debtor intends to prosecute this chapter 11 case diligently.
11:00 AM
Final Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Continue hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 am. Movant should file and serve any supplemental papers not later than April 7, 2021. Debtor may file and serve a response not later than April 14, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Movant's April 16, 2021 supplemental reply is odd -- it argues that the Court should dismiss this chapter 11 case with a bar to refiling, but that is not the relief requested by the motion. The motion sought to have this case converted to chapter 7. Nevertheless, having reviewed the debtor's supplemental opposition and the movant's reply thereto, the Court has a number of concerns.
Belatedly, on April 14, 2021, counsel for the debtor sent demand letters to the three sisters of the debtor's principal demanding a repayment of large preferential transfers made on the eve of bankruptcy. The fact that the debtor's current management would make such payments to insiders raises concerns all by itself, but, in addition, unless the three sisters plan to return the funds promptly, who will prosecute avoiding power claims agianst them? Clearly, the debtor cannot be relied upon to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors in connection with such a prosecution. Similarly, how can the court expect the debtor to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of its creditors with regard to the conflict that exists between the debtor and its principal about the need for the principal to pay rent for her use and occupancy of the debtor's property?
And what is the debtor's game plan with regard to section 362(d)(3). The petition reflects that this is a single asset real estate case, yet the debtor has neither filed a plan nor started to make monthly payments to the secured creditor. This means that the court would be required to grant relief from stay with regard to the property if the creditor filed a motion seeking this relief.
Why hasn't the debtor done anything to address this situation?
And what is the debtor's response to the questions raised in the supplemental
11:00 AM
reply about the debtor's failure to reflect on its MORs payments that it claims to have made for insurance and fencing? And what was the source of the payment to Ms. Liu of $5,000? Were these funds provided by the debtor's principal and given to the debtor to pay Ms. Liu? If so, does the receipt/deposit of these funds appear on the MORs? Who is Dennis Russell and what became of the $14,882.29 obtained from debtor's prior counsel?
Should the court issue an OSC re appointment of a chapter 11 trustee?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Sinaloence Food Products & Represented By Michael Jay Berger
Movant(s):
Monroe Family Trust Dated Represented By
Vanessa M Haberbush Richard A Brownstein
Shane Family Trust Dated December Represented By
Vanessa M Haberbush Richard A Brownstein
Ravi Financial, a Wyoming Limited Represented By
Vanessa M Haberbush Richard A Brownstein
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - Michael Berger, (310)271-6223 4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Ruling from March 3, 2021:
On February 24, 2021, Court continued hearing on creditor's motion to convert case to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Continue case status conference to same date and time -- April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file and serve updated status report (which may be included as part of its opposition to motion to convert) not later than April 14, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAVIED ON MARCH 3, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on motion to dismiss.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Sinaloence Food Products & Represented By Michael Jay Berger
2:00 PM
Dismissing Bankruptcy Case Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B)(1), or, in the Alternative,
Granting Relief from the Automatic Stay fr. 3-17-21
Docket 82
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 4/19/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
4/20/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900 4/21/21 - Abraham Assil (listen only)
4/21/21 - George Eshaghian (listen only)
2:00 PM
Final Ruling from March 17, 2021:
Continue hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with hearing on debtor's disclosure statement. The court will have a better opportunity to examine whether the debtor is acting in good faith and proceeding diligently with a reorganization of its affairs in the context of evaluating its proposed plan and disclosure statement. No new briefing on this motion will be permitted. Additional briefing as to whether there is a reasonable likelihood of reorganization within a reasonable period should come in the context of the hearing on the debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Having reviewed and analyzed the debtor's proposed plan, the court is left with the distinct impression that, with limited exception, this case is a two- party dispute and that the purpose of the bankruptcy filing was for the debtor to obtain a more favorable forum for the litigation of any remaining disputes with Canico. Grant motion to dismiss as a bad faith filing.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
2:00 PM
fr. 3-31-21
Docket 79
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 4/19/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
4/20/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900 4/21/21 - Abraham Assil (listen only)
4/21/21 - George Eshaghian (listen only)
3/17/21 -- At hearing held this date, court continued hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR THIS DATE. Parties also agreed that opposition to claim objection will be due March 25, 2021 and replies will be
2:00 PM
due April 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Deem claim objection to be an adversary proceeding for procedural purposes. Discuss need for and timing of discovery with parties and whether parties would like this matter sent to an early mediation. Set status conference for approximately 60 to 90 days.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Movant(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
2:00 PM | ||
2:20-16889 | Rhino Bare Projects LLC | Chapter 11 |
#202.00 | Motion for an Entry of Order: | |
1) Approving the Debtor's Disclosure Statement; | ||
2) Approving Solicitation, Voting, Balloting and Notice Procedures | ||
3). Setting Confirmation Hearing and Certain Deadlines in connection Debtor's Chapter 11 Plan | with | |
Docket 89 | ||
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 4/19/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
4/20/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900 4/21/21 - Abraham Assil (listen only)
4/21/21 - George Eshaghian (listen only)
2:00 PM
See tentative ruling for matter no. 203.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
2:00 PM
Docket 87
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 4/19/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 4/20/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
4/20/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900 4/21/21 - Abraham Assil (listen only)
4/21/21 - George Eshaghian (listen only)
Even ignoring any issues that may exist as to the adequacy of the disclosure statement and the various contradictory or confusing statements that it contains, as referenced in Canico's objection, approval of the disclosure statement should be denied. The plan that it describes is unconfirmable on its face for the reasons set forth below.
2:00 PM
With regard to secured creditors, this plan does not provide for a treatment that can be confirmed over any secured creditor's objection (and court assumes that Canico would vote against confirmation). By virtue of the charging order, Canico already holds a security interest in/against the interests that the plan proposes to distribute to them, yet the plan proposes to distribute only a portion of that interest to Canico (and the other secured creditors) in full satisfaction of its claims. Where, as here, the actual value of that interest is highly speculative, giving a secured creditor a portion of its collateral in full satisfaction of its secured claim is impermissible as the court cannot make the required finding that the secured creditor will receive the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. (See, e.g., Arnold & Baker Farms v. U.S. Farmers Home Admin. (In re Arnold & Baker Farms), 85 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1054 (1997) (affirming the BAP's reversal of confirmation of a "dirt for debt" plan that proposed to give secured creditor a portion of the land that served as its collateral because there was too much uncertainty as to the value of the land to be transferred).) If the debtor's interests are really worth as much as the debtor contends, the debtor should sell its interests to a third party and distribute the proceeds instead.
Creditors cannot be forced to bear the risk that the debtor's valuation of these interests is accurate and realizable.
Further, the plan contemplates assigning its priority and unsecured debts for payment to Mike Galam. The plan treats this as payment in full and provides for equity to retain its ownership interests in the debtor. The treatment for Class 3, general unsecured creditors, says that "This assumption will be on behalf of Mike Galam personally and as a new value contribution on behalf of Victor Galam." The plan simply assumes away the prospect that Canico will hold an unsecured deficiency claim based on its pending claim objection (see note 9 on page 7). $1,500,000 of the unsecured claims is held by the Galam Family Irrevocable Trust, which is wholly undocumented and may not even be a valid claim. If the debtor needs to cram down class 3, it will not be able to do so, as the promise of Mike Galam to make payment of claims in the future does not qualify as a new value contribution.
New value must be a present contribution rather than a promise to pay in the future. See Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 205-206, 108
S. Ct. 963, 99 L. Ed. 2d 169, (1988) (experience, expertise, and promise of
2:00 PM
future labor not new value); Metropolitan Holding Co. v. Weadock, 113 F.2d 207, 209 (6th Cir. 1940) ("the reasonable equivalent in money or money's worth"); Kham and Nate's Shoes No. 2, Inc. v. First Bank, 908 F.2d 1351, 1362 (7th Cir. 1990) (equity holders' guarantees of the debtor's debts are "intangible, inalienable, and unenforceable" and not substantial new value); In re Yasparro, 100 Bankr. 91, 98 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1989) (promissory notes not new value); In re Future Energy Corp., 83 Bankr. 470, 499 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1988) (promise to pay in future not new value).
The debtor is proposing to transfer its liability for the payment of priority and unsecured claims to Mike Galam and to have the debtor obtain a discharge as of the effective date. Unsecured and priority debts are not executory contracts that can be assumed and assigned. And even if they were, they would not be assignable without adequate assurance of future performance, and what information has the debtor provided to demonstrate that Mike Galam can or would pay any of these claims? Yet the debtor wants to transfer its obligations to Mike Galam and relieve itself of any liability. This is not a permissible plan structure. If Mike Galam had the financial wherewithal to make these payments, he could make a lump sum cash payment at or before confirmation in an amount sufficient to make the required payments. That might suffice as a new value contribution if the amount was appropriate and the contribution was necessary. The disclosure statement does not contain information sufficient to make this anything more than an empty promise. And is this debtor, who has no operations and will have no operations after the effective date, even eligible for a discharge?
In light of the many fundamental problems with this plan structure, it is a genuine issue whether the plan can be said to have been proposed in good faith.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
2:00 PM
Docket 1
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 4/19/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 4/20/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900 4/21/21 - Abraham Assil (listen only)
4/21/21 - George Eshaghian (listen only)
Set deadline for serving notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
10/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 7, 2020
2:00 PM
Bar date -- December 7, 2020
L/D to file updated status report -- December 28, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by December 28, 2020? Hearing required.
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has received status report filed December 29, 2020. Other than submitting to a 2004 examination and serving a notice of bar date, what if any steps toward reorganization have been accomplished since the last status conference and what has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to propose a plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with hearing on creditor's motion to dismiss or in the alternative relief from stay. Waive requirement that new status report be filed for this continued conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 3, 2021:
Creditor noticed hearing on motion to dismiss or in the alternative for relief from stay for March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m Continue case status conference to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with that hearing. No new status report required. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 3, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Continue case status conference to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to approve debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01036 Rhino Bare Projects LLC et al v. Canico Capital Group, LLC et al
fr. 4-20-21
Docket 7
4/20/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
Why does this matter need to be heard in bankruptcy court? If this matter is "core" because it constitutes a counterclaim to the defendant's claim against the estate, it is nevertheless the kind of counterclaim that raised issues under Stern v. Marshall, no? Defendant has not consented to this court's entry of final orders and has demanded a jury trial. The claims do not arise as a matter of bankruptcy law. They relate to prepetition conduct and are based on state law. Grant motion to abstain. (Court can hold the claim objection in abeyance pending the outcome of the state court litigation.)
Continue hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters in the Rhino Bare case. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 20, 2021. (Note: Status conference is scheduled for April 27, 2021 at
2:00 p.m.)
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Defendant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
West Best Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Abraham Assil Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Movant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
West Best Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Abraham Assil Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Plaintiff(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: D.O. CAPITAL GROUP
Docket 35
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)610-0000 4/27/21 - Daren Schlecter, (310)553-5815 4/27/21 - Gregory Jones, (310)429-9581
If movant wants to file an adversary proceeding to have its debt excepted from the discharge under section 523(a)(2)(B) or to bar debtor's discharge under section 727(a)(4), it is free to do so, but the Court is not inclined to grant relief from the automatic stay on 523(a)(2)(B) or 727(a)(4) grounds. Similarly, if movant believes that debtor is ineligible for relief under subchapter V, it should object to the debtor's election to proceed under this
10:00 AM
chapter. This is not a basis for relief from the automatic stay.
Although "bad faith" can constitute cause for relief from stay, this does not appear to be a two-party dispute and filing bankruptcy on the eve of a foreclosure does not necessarily constitute a bad faith filing. Court is not yet persuaded that this is a bad faith filing or that reorganization within a reasonable period is unlikely.
As movant has not established a lack of adequate protection or other cause for relief from stay under section 362(d)(1) or that grounds exist for relief from stay under section 362(d)(2), deny motion without prejudice.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw
Movant(s):
D.O. Capital Group Represented By Arnold L Graff
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:15-01535 Murtagh v. BAKER et al
fr. 12-8-15, 2-9-16, 4-5-16, 5-10-16, 5-24-16, 5-31-16, 9-27-16, 11-15-16,
1-10-17, 3-14-17, 6-13-17, 6-27-17, 7-11-17, 10-31-17, 2-13-18, 3-13-18,
5-8-18, 6-27-18, 8-16-18, 9-27-18, 12-11-18, 1-8-19, 3-12-19, 4-2-19, 6-11-19,
7-30-19, 10-15-19,11-19-19, 12-3-19, 3-31-20, 6-16-20, 7-21-20, 10-27-20,
11-10-20, 12-15-20, 1-12-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/15/21 - Peter Arhangelsky, (602)334-4416 4/26/21 - Douglas Neistat, (818)382-6200
Defendant's counsel should not handwrite documents to be filed with the Court. His writing is illegible.
Continue status conference to May 10, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters that will be on calendar for that date. OFF
2:00 PM
CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for May 31, 2016:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar. 6/2/16 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- September 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- September 13, 2016 Discovery cutoff -- September 30, 2016
L/D to lodge order appointing mediator -- June 17, 2016 Deadline to complete mediation -- September 27, 2016
7/6/16 -- court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for September 27, 2016:
Plaintiff has filed a notice of inability to prepare joint status report. Where is the declaration required by LBR 7016-1(a)(3) that must be included whenever a party submits a unilateral status report? Why haven't the parties used the mandatory status report form required by LBR 7016-1(a)(2)? When counsel for plaintiff provided a draft status report that did not comply with the Local Bankruptcy Rules, why didn't counsel for the defendant file a unilateral report in compliance with LBR 7016-1(a)(3)?
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for each of the parties. Counsel for the plaintiff is urged to download a current version of the Court's local rules, as he is apparently relying on an outdated version of the rules. He should refer to the Court's website.
As a result, although there is a great deal of alleged information contained in plaintiff's filing, none of it is evidence and it does not address the issues that are supposed to be included in the status report.
Set continued status conference in approximately 30 to 45 days. Parties are to file the required joint status report form not less than two weeks prior to the continued status conference.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for March 14, 2017:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no.101.
3/25/17 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- June 13, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- May 30, 2017
L/D to designate experts and exchange reports -- May 15, 2017 L/D to exchange responsive reports -- June 12, 2017
5/26/17 -- Court granted motion to extend June 12 deadline to June 19 and continued status conference to June 27, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 13, 2017.
6/12/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 11, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 27, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for July 11, 2017:
Parties were to exchange expert witness reports. They did not need to file them. On May 16, 2017, Court reopened discovery for a period of 60 days from that date to permit the parties to conduct additional discovery related to the website www.baddocjjm.com. Are the parties on track to complete that discovery by July 15?
Set deadline for the completion of expert discovery. Has all other discovery been completed?
Set pretrial conference and deadline for lodging joint pretrial order. Discuss with parties form of proposed pretrial order.
8/15/17 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to complete expert discovery -- September 15, 2017
Cont'd status conference -- October 31, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.
2:00 PM
L/D to file joint status report -- October 17, 2017
Tentative Ruling for October 31, 2017:
In light of court's rulings in related matters, when does plaintiff anticipate that he will be ready for trial.
2/6/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 13, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for March 13, 2018:
Continue status conference to March 20, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion on calendar for that date and time. Where is status report that should have been filed two weeks before status conference?
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 13, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for June 27, 2018:
Continue status conference to date of hearing on OSC (August 16, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.)
Tentative Ruling for August 16, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on OSC.
Tentative Ruling for September 27, 2018:
Continue status conference to a date after neutral expert should have filed his initial status report.
Tentative Ruling for December 11, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
12/10/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to January 8, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 11, 2018. NO
2:00 PM
APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for January 8, 2019:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
3/6/19 -- Court continued hearing to April 2, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters on calendar for that date and time.
Tentative Ruling for April 2, 2019:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matters on calendar.
Tentative Ruling for June 11, 2019:
For reasons set forth in tentative ruling for matter no. 7, strike Baker's answer to complaint and enter judgment for plaintiff and take status conference off calendar. Plaintiff should lodge proposed form of judgment.
Final Ruling for June 11, 2019:
Court held that it would be more appropriate for plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment once Baker's answer has been stricken than for the court to grant summary judgment summarily. Court extended deadline for plaintiff to file motion for default judgment to December 2, 2019.
What is the status of this matter? What progress has been made with regard to the turnover of records from the neutral expert to the plaintiff? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2019:
What is the status of this matter? What progress has been made with regard to the turnover of records from the neutral expert to the plaintiff?
2:00 PM
11/18/19 -- At plaintiff's request, Court continued status conference to December 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters set for hearing at that date and time. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to date that can be used for hearing on motion for default judgment (which must be filed by March 20, 2020).
Final Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 31, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff should file and serve a unilateral status report not later than March 17, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 31, 2020:
Where is the status report that plaintiff should have filed by March 17? Why hasn't counsel for plaintiff filed stipulation with Mr. Broom or lodged order resolving motion for turnover? Hearing required.
Status report filed on March 27, 2020. Court received copy on March 30, 2020. It now appears that plaintiff has abandoned any attempts to obtain information from Mr. Broom and plans to file yet another motion that he believes will enable him to maintain the information that he desires. Has that motion been filed and, if so, when is it set for hearing? Court still needs the order that plaintiff was to lodge in connection with turnover motion. Court will not want to rule on that motion until it has memorialized in an order its prior ruling on the latest turnover motion.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar. Discuss with parties plaintiff's request for a further extension of deadline to file motion for default judgment.
7/2/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting continued status
2:00 PM
conference for July 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., requiring parties to file joint status report by July 7, 2020 and extending the deadline for plaintiff to file a default judgment motion to July 31, 2020.
Tentatlve Ruling for July 21, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar.
8/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order extending deadline to file default judgment motion to October 30, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 27, 2020:
Continue status conference to date of hearing on one or more of the motions that plaintiff plans to file.
Tentative Ruling for December 15, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matter.
1/12/21 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference to April 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2021:
Discuss with parties the prospect of extending the discovery cutoff and continuing the deadline for the filing of a motion for default judgment.
Debtor(s):
CLARK WARREN BAKER Represented By
Alan F Broidy - DISBARRED - Baruch C Cohen
Defendant(s):
CLARK WARREN BAKER Represented By Jessica Ponce
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
James Murtagh Represented By David P Bleistein Lisa Hiraide Douglas M Neistat Michael J Conway Derek Linke Derek A Newman
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Represented By Carolyn A Dye
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01116 Avery v. Premiere Medical Center of Burbank, Inc. et al
fr. 7-14-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20, 3-30-21
Docket 1
6/9/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant to respond to complaint to July 17, 2020 and continuing status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Discuss with parties procedures for withdrawal of reference when a jury trial has been requested. Discovery cannot await the resolution of that motion. Set discovery cutoff for approximately 120 days.
8/26/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- December 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
2:00 PM
L/D to file joint status report -- November 17, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- February 26, 2021
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Are parties requesting extension of discovery cutoff? Hearing required.
12/7/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to complete discovery -- April 30, 2021
1/10/21 -- Court approved stipulation authorizing trustee to file first amended complaint.
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
According to the status report, the parties have negotiated a settlement in principle. Has this settlement been reduced to writing? What will the structure of the proposed settlement be? Hearing required.
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation and continued hearing to April 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 30, 2021.
4/13/21 -- Court granted motion approving compromise. (Lump sum payment due within 60 days after order approving compromise becomes final.)
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2021:
When does the trustee anticipate that he will be in a position to dismiss this action? Hearing required.
4/21/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to July 13, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Premiere Medical Management Represented By David L Oberg
Defendant(s):
Premiere Medical Center of Represented By Ian S Shelton
Michael D Marsh, M.D. Represented By Ian S Shelton
NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza I Represented By
Lloyd S Mann Paul B Derby
DOES 1-10, Inclusive Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Wesley H Avery Represented By Stephen L Raucher
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Daniel R Lahana Stephen L Raucher
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01183 DYE v. Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. et al
fr. 8-27-19, 11-19-19, 12-17-19, 2-11-20; 6-30-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20, 2-23-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
If defendants have filed motion to dismiss, continue status conference to date of hearing on motion as a holding date. If defendants have filed answer to complaint, both parties have indicated a willingness to attend mediation.
Discuss with parties the timing of mediation.
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2019:
Parties report that they have scheduled a mediation for December 2, 2019 with Meredith Jury. Continue status conference to December 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (Parties need not file a new status report prior to that status conference.) APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2019:
Did the parties participate in a mediation before Meredith Jury? If so, was a settlement reached? Hearing required.
12/16/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 11,
2:00 PM
2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 17, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for February 11, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for late July, 2020. Set final status conference for shortly before discovery cutoff.
4/22/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 30, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- June 16, 2020 Discovery cutoff -- July 31, 2020
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2020:
Continue status conference to August 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion for summary judgment. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2020.
6/30/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates: Discovery cutoff -- October 31, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2 L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to exchange expert witness reports/designate experts -- November 16, 2020
L/D to complete expert discovery -- December 1, 2020
8/12/20 -- At hearing held this datre, Court continued status conference and hearing on summary judgment motion to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 201.
10/19/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
2:00 PM
Pretrial conference -- February 23, 2021 @ 2 L/D to copmlete discovery -- November 30, 2020
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- December 31, 2020 L/D to complete expert discovery -- January 31, 2021
L/D to lodge pretrial order -- Feburary 9, 2021 L/D to file pretrial motions -- December 31, 2020
11/18/20 -- Court signed stipulated order with following dates:
L/D to complete depositions of Burgee, Abramoff and Lanius extended to January 15, 2021;
L/D to file pretrial motions extended to January 31, 2021;
L/D for parties to designate experts and exchange expert witness reports extended to February 15, 2021; and
L/D for parties to complete expert witness discovery extended to March 12, 2021.
1/15/21-- Court approved stipulation continuing following dates:
L/D to complete depositions of Burgee and Lanius extended to January 29, 2021;
L/D to file pretrial motions extended to March 1, 2021;
L/D for parties to designate experts and exchange expert witness reports extended to March 15, 2021; and
L/D to complete expert witness discovery extended to April 9, 2021.
In light of the foregoing, court also continued pretrial conference to April 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties shall lodge joint pretrial order not later than April 13, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
2/17/21-- Court approved stipulation continuing following dates:
L/D to file pretrial motions extended to April 19, 2021;
L/D for parties to designate experts and exchange expert witness reports extended to April 30, 2021; and
L/D to complete expert witness discovery extended to May 24, 2021.
2:00 PM
In light of the foregoing, court also continued pretrial conference to June 15, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties shall lodge joint pretrial order not later than June 1, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
Defendant(s):
Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
John Burgee Represented By
Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Robert Abramoff Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Steven M Berman Stella A Havkin
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01184 DYE v. de Gallegos et al
Christian de Gallegos
fr. 8-27-19, 11-19-19, 12-17-19, 2-11-20, 6-30-20, 9-15-20, 10-20-20, 2-23-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Both parties have indicated a willingness to attend mediation. Discuss with parties the timing of mediation.
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2019:
Parties report that they have scheduled a mediation for December 9, 2019 with Meredith Jury. Continue status conference to December 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (Parties need not file a new status report prior to that status conference.) APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2019:
Did the parties participate in a mediation before Meredith Jury? If so, was a settlement reached? Hearing required.
12/13/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 11, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 17, 2019.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for February 11, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for early June, 2020. Set final status conference for shortly before discovery cutoff.
4/22/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 30, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- June 16, 2020 Discovery cutoff -- July 31, 2020
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for late November, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Set final status conference for approximately 90 to 120 days.
6/30/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates: Discovery cutoff -- October 31, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2 L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to exchange expert witness reports/designate experts -- November 16, 2020
L/D to complete expert discovery -- December 1, 2020
8/28/20 -- Court approved compromise between trustee and defendant Max Charles Moore III resolving all claims against him.
Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Continue status conference to October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with Trustee's motion for partial summary adjudication. Parties need not file new status report for that conference. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
2:00 PM
Discuss with parties anticipated dates for filing revised motion for partial summary adjudication. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
There is a court form for an attachment to the status report for additional parties. In the future, trustee should file a single, collective status report using the main form and the attachment for additional defendants.
Court notes that Jeffrey Elliott has demanded a jury trial. Assuming there is a right to a jury trial that has not been waived, this court will nevertheless handle all pretrial proceedings up through and including pretrial conference before the reference is withdrawn and the matter is returned to the district court for trial. Is there a dispute as to whether Mr. Elliott has a right to a jury trial?
Discuss with parties the timing of motion for summary judgment/partial summary adjudication and pretrial conference. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions.
4/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation modifying its prior scheduling order in the following respects:
L/D to complete discovery -- September 1, 2021
L/D to have pretrial motions heard -- October 1, 2021
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- October 31, 2021 L/D to complete expert witness discovery -- November 31, 2021.
Status conference continued to June 15, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Jeffrey Norman Elliott Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Max Charles Moore II Represented By Jonathan M. Saffer
Christian de Gallegos Represented By Paul A Beck
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By Steven M Berman
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01177 Acra Machinery, Inc., a California corporation et v. Avakian
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20, 1-5-21, 3-2-21,
3-31-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/27/21 - Marshall Brubacher
Continue status conference for approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
12/27/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Final Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report not later than February 25, 2020. Parties should lodge an
2:00 PM
order appointing mediators not later than December 24, 2020 and should complete a day of mediation not later than March 10, 2020. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order. Impose sanctions of $150 each on counsel for parties for failing to file joint status report in a timely manner.
Did the parties complete a day of mediation as previously ordered by the Court? If not, why not?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/7/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
7/10/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- July 7, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- September 15, 2020
Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Why didn't the parties complete mediation by the deadline that the court established for this purpose? Hearing required.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to complete mediation to October 5, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
What is the status of this matter? Did the parties in fact participate in a mediation by the deadline established by the court for this purpose? Hearing required.
11/3/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- January 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- December 22, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- December 21, 2020
12/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to February 21, 2021
Status conference continued to March 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to January 19, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 5, 2021
2/19/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to March 22, 2021
Status conference continued to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to March 16, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Have the parties now completed discovery? Does either party anticipate filing any pretrial motions? Hearing required.
3/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation extending discovery cutoff to April 19, 2021 and continuing status conference to Apri 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 30, 2021.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2021:
Where is status report that should have been filed by April 13, 2021? Hearing required.
4/27/21 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to complete discovery -- May 19, 2021
L/D to file joint status report -- May 11, 2021 OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Defendant(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Plaintiff(s):
ACRA SEIKI, Inc., a California Represented By Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
Acra Machinery, Inc., a California Represented By
Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01036 Rhino Bare Projects LLC et al v. Canico Capital Group, LLC et al
Docket 1
Continue status conference to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Defendant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
West Best Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
2:00 PM
Abraham Assil Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Plaintiff(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01142 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. v. Slotkin
fr. 8-25-20, 12-1-20, 4-6-21
Docket 1
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 4/19/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
4/19/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
Set discovery cutoff and continue status conference for approximately three to four months.
8/28/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting discovery cutoff for February 26, 2021.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Are parties requesting extension of February discovery cutoff? Hearing required.
12/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Status conference continued to April 6, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- March 23, 2021 Discovery cutoff extended to July 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 6, 2021:
What, if any, progress has been made in this action since the last status conference? Has any discovery been conducted? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2021:
Court continued status conference to this date so that dates can be coordinated with status conferences in trustee's adversary proceeding. Continue status conference to date set for continued status conference in trustee's adversary proceeding.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By
2:00 PM
Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01672 Miller v. SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF DECEMBER 14, 2012 et al
Docket 48
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 4/19/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
4/19/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
Deny motion. Debtor has failed to provide trustee with comprehensible cash flow statements or to adequately explain how funds previously released to Olympic ($445,304.22) have been spent. Debtor claims that funds are needed for past due interest payments to Fan, yet it appears that payments are being made to Fan and others as partnership distributions. And why aren't the rent payments received by Olympic and Clover sufficient to make the required mortgage payments? And why is it appropriate for funds generated by a sale of assets of Olympic to be used to pay expenses attributable to other LLC's? Clearly, the debtor is in the practice of treating the various entities as if they are alter egos of one another, expending
2:00 PM
resources of one entity for the benefit of another as he sees fit. Debtor has not demonstrated that Olympic needs the requested funds to pay its own ordinary course operating expenses.
Debtor also requests that the funds be released to Olympic to cover future and unexpected obligations of the Olympic or the other entities. How does this make sense? The purpose of the preliminary injunction was to prevent the debtor from dissipating these assets while the trustee litigates whether the assets of these entities should be treated as assets of the debtor's bankruptcy estate. This purpose would be defeated entirely if the debtor were permitted to continue liquidating assets and disbursing the proceeds in any manner he sees fit without appropriate oversight to confirm that the expenses in question are legitimate ordinary course operating expenses for the entity whose funds the debtor seeks to expend.
Debtor is correct that no receiver has been appointed for the various entities, but, in light of the way the debtor has been managing these entities, perhaps such an appointment would be appropriate. Has the trustee explored whether there are sufficient grounds to support the appointment of a receiver for these entities?
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
MARK ABBEY SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
14257 CHANDLER MANOR LLC Represented By
David S Mayes
17841 PALORA MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
Robert Mayman Represented By David S Mayes
2:00 PM
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
748 DETROIT MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se
SAVANNAH SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se
Movant(s):
MARK ABBEY SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
748 DETROIT MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
14257 CHANDLER MANOR LLC Represented By
David S Mayes
17841 PALORA MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
2:00 PM
Robert Mayman Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
SAVANNAH SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
Plaintiff(s):
Elissa Miller Represented By
Robyn B Sokol
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01672 Miller v. SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF DECEMBER 14, 2012 et al
fr. 1-26-21
Docket 1
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)871-7589 4/19/21 - Luke Eaton, (213)928-9838
4/19/21 - Jeffrey Goldman, (949)567-3547
2:00 PM
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
MARK ABBEY SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
748 DETROIT MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
14257 CHANDLER MANOR LLC Represented By
David S Mayes
17841 PALORA MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
Robert Mayman Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se
SAVANNAH SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
2:00 PM
INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
Plaintiff(s):
Elissa Miller Represented By
Robyn B Sokol
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01034 Gavrieli et al v. Gavrieli et al
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
3/31/21 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference and hearing on motion to dismiss to; June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Defendant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
William N Lobel
Gavrieli Brands LLC Pro Se
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
William N Lobel
Plaintiff(s):
Dikla Gavrieli Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly
2:00 PM
Dikla Gavrieli, derivatively on Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly
Dean Unatin Represented By
Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01034 Gavrieli et al v. Gavrieli et al
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
3/31/21 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference and hearing on motion to dismiss to; June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Defendant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
William N Lobel
Gavrieli Brands LLC Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Dikla Gavrieli Represented By
2:00 PM
Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly
Dikla Gavrieli, derivatively on Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly
Dean Unatin Represented By
Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
[Presumption of undue hardship]
Docket 10
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Juan J Magallon Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Certificates of Credit Counseling are Expired - taken on 1/7/20 fr. 3-31-21
Docket 10
Tentative Ruling for March 31, 2021:
Prepetition credit counseling needs to have been taken within the 180 days prior to the bankruptcy filing. Debtor took couseling more than a year before filing and is not eligible to be a debtor in bankruptcy. Dismiss case.
Final Ruling for March 31, 2021:
Continue hearing to April 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give debtor an opportunity to appear in person and answer questions.
Tentative Ruling for April 28, 2021:
If debtor appears, question debtor as to how different counseling would have been if it had been conducted within appropriate window.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Jorge Silva Represented By
Laura E Claveran
Joint Debtor(s):
Silvana Oliviera Campos Represented By Laura E Claveran
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
fr. 3-17-21, 3-31-21
Docket 404
NONE LISTED -
3/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 31, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
3/15/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 31, 2021.
4/19/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving objection. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
MedCoast Medservice Inc. Represented By Henry D Paloci
Movant(s):
MedCoast Medservice Inc. Represented By Henry D Paloci
Trustee(s):
David Keith Gottlieb (TR) Represented By Ron Bender
Krikor J Meshefejian
10:00 AM
Docket 42
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/19/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)610-0000 4/26/21 - Daren Schlecter, (310)553-5747 4/27/21 - Simon Aron, (310)478-4100
4/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
4/27/21 - George Lazar, (619)595-7187
Court is not yet prepared to conclude that the prospect of reorganization is unlikely. Continue hearing approximately 90 days to give debtor an opportunity to make progress and court an opportunity to evaluate the extent to which progress is made.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Summer M Shaw
D.O. Capital Group Represented By Arnold L Graff
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
fr. 4-21-21
Docket 10
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/13/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)799-1622
4/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
4/27/21 - George Lazar, (619)595-7187
The debtor has now filed a declaration in which he represents that no balance sheet, statement of operations or cash flow statements exist for him, as he is an individual. Debtor has now filed his 2019 tax returns.
Continue hearing on Court's OSC re dismissal to April 28, 2021 at 10:00 a..m. to be heard concurrently with creditor's motion to dismiss. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 21, 2021.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
fr. 4-21-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/13/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)799-1622
4/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
4/27/21 - George Lazar, (619)595-7187
Where is the case status report? Continue case status conference to April 28, 2021 at 10:00 a..m. to be heard concurrently with creditor's motion to dismiss. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 21, 2021. (Debtor should file required status report before that date. See docket no. 11.)
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
(Debtor filed status report late.) Set bar date and deadline for serving notice of bar date. When does debtor anticipate that it will be filing application to employ counsel and real estate broker? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Clifford Passage, LLC Represented By Matthew Abbasi
10:00 AM
Docket 28
The motion that the court granted was properly served on Bag Fund, LLC. Perhaps the prior motion was not, but that motion was not granted. The parties never filed a stipulation concerning any extension of time to respond to the motion and agreements extending deadlines are not effective in federal court unless the court approves them. It does not appear that the movant has established excusable neglect for failing to respond to the motion in a timely manner. Nevertheless, the court is concerned by the movant's contentions regarding the changing valuations offered by the debtor for the property in question.
Hearing required.
(NOTE: A motion to reopen a case is purely clerical in nature. Even if movant had opposed the debtor's motion to reopen, the court would have granted that motion to permit the motion to avoid lien to be filed. Therefore, any failure to serve movant with the motion to reopen would not be prejudicial on these facts.)
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Modesta Caridad Llizo Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Richard G Heston
Movant(s):
Bag Fund LLC Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 49
ZoomGov Appearance by:
4/27/21 - Simon Aron, (310)478-4100
4/27/21 - Dustin Nirschl, (951)784-1678
Deny motion. Motion does not contain any newly discovered facts that are relevant to the outcome of the motion. As court explained at prior hearing, court will look at assets of the estate and apply the relevant standards to them. Court rejects debtor's contention that, now, as a result of the sale of two other pieces of property, there is equity in the debtor's real property. Yogi was owed approximately $30,000,000. It holds a deed of trust against the Londonderry property to secure the repayment of this amount. The provisions of the deed of promissory note to which the debtor points to support its contention that Yogi is owed only $10,000,000 refer to when payments are due, that is the timing of installments. They are not limits on the extent of Yogi's lien against the property. The debtor has not paid Yogi
$20,000,000 leaving a balance of only $10,000,000 and, even after the principal reductions that resulted from the closing of the two other sales, the
10:00 AM
debtor calculates (based only on a broker's opinion and not on an appraisal) that its equity in the property is $644,000. As Yogi's lien is significantly larger than $10,000,000, there is no equity left in the property. (The opposition refers to a junior lien in favor of Yogi for an additional $5.2M. What is the debtor's position with regard to this lien?)
As to the likelihood of reorganization within a reasonable period, the debtor's plan has always been to sell the Londonderry property, yet, although this case was filed on December 9, 2020, the debtor has not even filed an application to retain a broker. There is no reorganization in progress.
Debtor(s):
1369 Londonderry Estate, LLC Represented By Todd L Turoci
2:00 PM
Docket 43
NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Ernesto Cornejo Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: ALLY BANK
Docket 18
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/3/21 - Marjorie Johnson, (951)778-9878
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Lyndia Elizabeth Carter Represented By Marc A Goldbach
Movant(s):
Ally Bank Represented By
Marjorie M Johnson
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# JHMF C1F3 7JX0 03266 MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST
Docket 7
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/3/21 - Vincent Frounjuian, (818)859-7511
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Roberto Antonio Sanchez Morales Represented By
Barry E Borowitz
Movant(s):
Honda Lease Trust Represented By Vincent V Frounjian
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01195 Dye v. Kim et al
Docket 45
The Court's tentative ruling when the court granted the trustee's default motion read as follows:
Grant motion. Enter judgment for plaintiff quieting title to the property in the bankruptcy estate. The 2014 transfer to the Irrevocable Trust was invalid and transferred nothing in that, as of the time the debtor executed a quit claim deed in favor of the Irrevocable Trust, he was no longer the owner of the property and was outside the chain of title. Title to the property was held by the debtor's living trust at the time of the transfer and remained owned by the living trust as of the petition date. As his living trust can be revoked at any time by the debtor, the property became an asset of his bankruptcy estate at the time of the filing.
(If court grants motion, take status conference currently scheduled for January 19, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. off calendar.)
The court did not grant the motion based on a fraudulent transfer theory, as the trustee cannot avoid as a fraudulent transfer a transfer that never
2:00 PM
occurred. As the trustee had argued that the deed was out of the chain of title, if this were true, there would not have been a transfer to avoid.
According to the trustee, the debtor may now be claiming that there was only one trust and that it was converted from a revocable trust into an irrevocable trust, and therefore that there is no problem with the chain of title. Stated differently, the debtor's contention appears to be that it doesn't matter if/that the second transfer of the property was unnecessary or ineffective because title was already held by the trust and the debtor converted the trust into an irrevocable trust (with the result that the property did not come into his bankruptcy estate at filing because an irrevocable trust is not disregarded for bankruptcy purposes). Court agrees with the trustee that an amendment to the trust to make it irrevocable would have the same effect as, and is the functional equivalent for fraudulent transfer purposes of, a transfer to a new irrevocable trust: it would be the act that had the effect of transferring the property from the debtor (for bankruptcy purposes) to a separate entity.
However, what does the original complaint plead? The trustee's complaint seeks to avoid the deed transferring the property to the irrevocable trust (or in the alternative, in the fifth claim for relief, to quiet title to the property in the estate because the deed transferring it to the irrevocable trust was out of the chain of title). It does not seek to avoid the amendment of the trust under a fraudulent transfer theory. On these facts would it be appropriate to simply modify the judgment without first amending the complaint and bringing a new motion for default judgment if there is a default in response to the amended complaint?
The Court granted the motion for default judgment under the trustee's fifth claim for relief -- to quiet title in the estate. The Court's ruling was that the property remains an asset of this bankruptcy estate. None of the defendants has moved for reconsideration of the order granting the default judgment motion and, in light of the fact that this was a motion for default judgment, before the defendant would be permitted to defend the action, he/she/it would have to have the default itself set aside. That hasn't occurred either. If the trustee is now ready to have a final judgment entered, the court could enter a judgment based on its January 11, 2021 order, but, if the trustee now wants judgment under a different theory not pleaded in the complaint (that the amendment of the trust was a fraudulent transfer), it would seem that the trustee will need to amend her complaint and start the process over.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Eun Ho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang Donald E Iwuchuku
Defendant(s):
Eun Ho Kim Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Eunho Kim as Trustee of the Eun Ho Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Kye Sik Moon Represented By Donald E Iwuchuku
Selk Group, Inc., a California Pro Se
DOES 1 - 20, Inclusive Pro Se
Movant(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By James A Dumas Jr
Plaintiff(s):
Carolyn A. Dye Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01195 Dye v. Kim et al
fr. 10-27-20, 1-19-21, 4-20-21
Docket 1
10/28/20 -- Court entered order denying motion to dismiss, setting deadline of November 30, 2020 for filing of answers to complaint and setting status conference for January 19, 2021. (Parties are to file joint status report not later than January 5, 2021.)
1/5/21 -- Court orally granted motion for default judgment against defendant Connie Kim. Action remains unresolved as against other defendants.
Tentative Ruling for January 19, 2021:
2:00 PM
Set discovery cutoff for late April, 2021. When will plaintiff be in a position to bring her motion for summary judgment? Hearing required.
1/22/21 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff -- May 17, 2021
Cont'd status conference -- April 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- April 6, 2021
If motion for partial summary judgment is filed by March 9, 2021, it may be heard at the same time as the status conference.
Tentative Ruling for April 20, 2021:
Status conference report represents that a motion for summary judgment will have been filed by the time of the status conference and will be set for hearing on May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Has such a motion been filed?
Discuss with parties issues surrounding scheduling of meet and confer and whether it makes sense to order this matter to mediation.
Tentative Ruling for May 4, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matter.
Debtor(s):
Eunho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang
Defendant(s):
Eunho Kim Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Eunho Kim as Trustee of the Eun Ho Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Kye Sik Moon Represented By
2:00 PM
Donald E Iwuchuku
Selk Group, Inc., a California Pro Se
DOES 1 - 20, Inclusive Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Carolyn A. Dye Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
[Presumption of undue hardship]
Docket 10
(22.57% interest) Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Shaneshia Latrice Jeffrey Represented By Raymond Perez
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 45
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/4/21 - Anthony Rothman, (424)273-8842
The notion of a confidential settlement in this context is problematic. Commencing an involuntary case is a public exercise. Other creditors and parties in interest have a right to know what consideration is being given to the petitioner as part of the settlement that makes an involuntary case unnecessary. Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Rogue Apparel Group Inc. Represented By
Anthony J Rothman Esq
Movant(s):
Coulter Ventures LLC dba Rogue Represented By
David L. Neale Todd M Arnold
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
Docket 1
When will debtor be able to resolve corporate status issues? Will the parties need to engage in discovery as to whether the debtor is generally paying its debts as they become due? Is there a dispute as to the number of creditors?
Hearing required.
2/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 31, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 10, 2021.
3/1/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 31, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Continue status conference to May 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with stipulation re dismissal. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON
10:00 AM
APRIL 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on stipulation re dismissal.
Debtor(s):
Rogue Apparel Group Inc. Represented By
Anthony J Rothman Esq
10:00 AM
fr. 3-10-21, 4-7-21
Docket 42
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/13/21 - Caroline Djang, (949)263-6586 5/3/21 - Damian Capozzola, (213)448-2709 5/3/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779 5/3/21 - Marsha Houston (213)457-6417 5/3/21 - Christopher Rivas, (213)457-6417 5/3/21 - Richard Mashack, (714)624-8000 5/3/21 - Chad Haes, (949)413-7223
5/4/21 - Evan Smith, (951)894-7332
10:00 AM
5/5/21 - Alan Tippie, (213)626-2311
5/5/21 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311
Tentative Ruling from March 10, 2021:
It is not the case that appointment of a trustee moots this motion. Debtor only owns a portion of the title to the affected real property as a tenant in common. There are three other owners who are not in bankruptcy. The receiver was not appointed for the debtor. The receiver was appointed to take charge of the property. It makes no sense to have the receiver controlling three of the undivided interests in the property and the debtor's trustee controlling the other. If there are concerns about the choice of Mr. Leslie as the receiver, the court will grant relief from stay to permit the trustee that the court will appoint in response to the motion on calendar as number 4 to litigate those concerns on behalf of the debtor, should he or she elect to do so.
Final Ruling from March 10, 2021:
Court appointed trustee in response to related motion. Court continued hearing on this motion to April 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give the trustee an opportunity to consider his/her position with regard to this motion. Order continuing hearing should clarify that receiver may remain in possession pending outcome of the hearing on this motion.
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Trustee requests a continuance to July 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and that the status quo be maintained in the interim. Grant trustee's request. Continue hearing to July 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Authorize receiver to remain in possession in the interim. (Counsel for receiver should lodge order to this effect.)
10:00 AM
Movant objects and claims that the trustee should abandon the estate's interest in the real property. But that is not the relief requested by this motion. If the movant would like the trustee to abandon the property and the trustee is not willing to do so, the lender should bring a motion to compel abandonment. The granting of a motion to permit the lender to remain in possession would not amount to the abandonment of the estate's interest in the property, nor would it result in termination of the automatic stay. It would simply permit the receiver to remain as the custodian of the property while the trustee continues to administer the estate.
NOTE: Movant complains that the co-tenants are demanding concessions in exchange for their willingness to convey their interests to the estate, but what obligation do they have to convey these interests to the estate? The trustee could no doubt file an adversary proceeding under section 363(h), but that would entail expense and delay.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III- Represented By
Marsha A Houston Christopher O Rivas
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
10:00 AM
Docket 1
Zoomgov Appearance by:
4/13/21 - Caroline Djang, (949)263-6586 4/26/21 - Steven Berman, (813)227-2332 5/3/21 - Damian Capozzola, (213)448-2709 5/3/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779 5/3/21 - Marsha Houston (213)457-6417 5/3/21 - Christopher Rivas, (213)457-6417 5/3/21 - Richard Mashack, (714)624-8000 5/3/21 - Chad Haes, (949)413-7223
5/4/21 - Evan Smith, (951)894-7332
10:00 AM
5/5/21 - Alan Tippie, (213)626-2311
5/5/21 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311
Court has reviewed the trustee's status report. Are there any steps that the court could take to facilitate the parties' discussions concerning the future of the property? Would this be an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
11:00 AM
Docket 44
Tentative Ruling from March 31, 2021:
Court recognizes that the debtor has appealed the January 22, 2021 state court judgment in favor of the Unatins and claims that entry of judgment in the Unatins' favor constituted a great miscarriage of justice. Nevertheless, the court takes judicial notice that a jury of 12 people, after a six-week jury trial, found in a lengthy and detailed verdict form that the Unatins were entitled to judgment in their favor on their claims against the debtor for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and conversion and that the debtor's wrongful acts were done with malice, oppression and/or fraud. The state court also issued a statement of decision describing the jury's findings as follows: "On Verdict Form 1, the jury found in favor of Mrs. Unatin and against Mr. Gavrielli on all of her claims: breach of fiduciary duty regarding the Company, breach of fiduciary duty regarding the outside investments, fraud, conversion, breach of contract, and breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing. The jury also found that Mr. Gavrielli "engaged in malice, oppression and/or fraud with respect to each of Mrs. Unatin's tort
11:00 AM
claims."
On these facts, the court is seriously concerned that the debtor cannot be relied upon to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. As a result, it is difficult for the court to defer to the business judgment of the debtor in possession with regard to such matters as the structure of its plan of reorganization or to rely upon the accuracy or adequacy of information contained in the debtor's disclosure statement.
The state court findings constitute sufficient cause for this court to appoint a chapter 11 trustee under Bankruptcy Code section 1104. Accordingly, court will issue an order to show cause why a chapter 11 trustee should not be appointed in this chapter 11 case and set a hearing on that order for approximately three to four weeks. Continue hearing on debtor's disclosure statement for approximately 90 to 120 days to give any chapter 11 trustee appointed an opportunity to assess the debtor's financial situation and access to resources and to decide whether he or she supports the plan structure proposed by the debtor or whether he or she believes that more expedited payment arrangements for creditors should be pursued.
NOTE: A large portion of the debtor's response to the Unatins' objection to his disclosure statement is devoted to accusations of wrongdoing on the part of one or both of the Unatins. However, these accusations, even if true, have no tendency to prove that the debtor can be trusted to serve as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. Proof that the Unatins have misbehaved does not mean that the debtor hasn't. It is certainly possible that both the debtor and his sister are bad actors. Perhaps the Unatins should not be trusted either, but they aren't trying to serve as debtors in possession in this chapter 11 case.
Final Ruling for March 31, 2021:
Parties and the committee are willing to attempt to mediate their respective disputes. In the interim, the Court will issue OSC re appointment of a trustee and set it for hearing on June 30, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give the parties and the committee an opportunity to try to resolve their respective disputes through mediation.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Tentative ruling for March 31, 2021 remains unchanged. Continue hearing on disclosure statement to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
11:00 AM
fr. 3-31-21
Docket 38
3/18/21 -- Court approved stipulation extending deadline for committee to respond to motion for approval of disclosure statement.
See tentative ruling for matter no. 100. Continue hearing on disclosure statement to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5,
2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
11:00 AM
Docket 1
Continue case status conference to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
11:00 AM
[OST]
Docket 370
Grant motion. Approve compromise and authorize debtor to pay $4,250 for transportation expenses. Waive 14-day stay of 6004(h).
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 14
4/22/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Oppositions will be due May 20, 2021. Replies will be due May 27, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 6, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Meghan Leigh Puhr Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 74
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/4/21 - Tanya Benham, (310)203-5359
Motion is based on debtor's failure to pay quarterly fees and file MORs. Debtor claims to have now paid the overdue fees and filed the missing MORs. Based on these representations, continue hearing to May 12, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. to be heard concurrently with amended disclosure statement. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 6, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION fr. 8-11-20, 10-20-20, 12-8-20, 2-9-21
Docket 38
7/27/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 20, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 11, 2020.
10/6/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
11/30/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 9, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 8, 2020.
1/27/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 11, 2021:
10:00 AM
Court approved a sale of the subject property by order entered March 22, 2021. Has the sale closed? Is this motion now moot? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Kyle Henry Walkenhorst Represented By Michael E Clark
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association Represented By Sean C Ferry Byron B Mauss
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Rosendo Gonzalez
10:00 AM
MOVANT: ALBERT ISSACO C/O SUTTER HILL INVESTMENTS fr. 9-29-20, 10-20-20, 12-8-20, 2-9-21
Docket 44
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 20, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2020.
10/6/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
11/30/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 9, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 8, 2020.
1/29/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 11, 2021:
10:00 AM
Court approved a sale of the subject property by order entered March 22, 2021. Has the sale closed? Is this motion now moot? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Kyle Henry Walkenhorst Represented By Michael E Clark
Movant(s):
ALBERT ISSACO c/o Sutter Hill Represented By
Edward G Schloss
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Rosendo Gonzalez
10:00 AM
MOVANT: BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA
Docket 10
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/7/21 - Marjorie Johson, (951)750-6497
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Angela Adaoag Lora Represented By
Sanaz Sarah Bereliani
Movant(s):
BMW Bank of North America Represented By Marjorie M Johnson
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# 5TDZARFH5JS037971 MOVANT: TOYOTA LEASE TRUST
Docket 8
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Sophia Garcia Represented By John Asuncion
Movant(s):
Toyota Lease Trust, as serviced by Represented By
Austin P Nagel
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# 3N1AB7AP8GY272091
MOVANT: NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
Docket 14
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Olga Gutierrez Represented By Marcus Gomez
Movant(s):
Nissan Motor Acceptance Represented By Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: GIVE BACK, LLC. fr. 3-30-21
Docket 59
5/10/21 - Aram Ordubegian, (213) 629-7410
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Grant motion insofar as it requests comfort order clarifying that automatic stay does not preclude movant from exercising its rights and remedies as against nondebtors under its guaranties and membership interest pledge agreements.
Debtors response to the motion is that there is a sizeable equity cushion, based upon its appraisal; however, opposition does not dispute or even respond to movant's contention that the value of movant's collateral is declining in value due to debtors' continuing failure to pay real estate taxes.
10:00 AM
Trustee's sale guaranties reflect that all of the properties are tax defaulted for nonpayment of taxes going back to 2018. (Accrual of interest on debtors' obligations to movant does not constitute a loss in value for which movant is entitled to receive adequate protection.)
Court acknowledges that, even if there is no equity in property, as these lots are the debtors' only assets, they are necessary to any possible reorganization, but the Court is not yet in a position to determine whether any reorganization is likely to occur within a reasonable period. Court is not inclined to schedule an evidentiary hearing as to the value of the property, as the court will not rely on the existence of an equity cushion as adequate protection when there is an actual and quantifiable diminution in value occurring due to the nonpayment of real property taxes and the accrual of interest thereon.
What is the aggregate amount of real estate taxes currently outstanding with regard to the lots and at what rate do these unpaid taxes accrue interest?
How much more in real estate taxes will become delinquent if not paid by April 10? If debtors want an opportunity to try to reorganize their affairs in chapter 11, they will need to at least keep the size of the debt senior to movant from increasing while they attempt to do so.
Enter adequate protection order that conditions continuation of the automatic stay on the debtors' remaining current with post-petition real estate taxes and making monthly payments to movant in an amount that is not less than the amount of interest and penalties that are accruing monthly on the unpaid real property taxes.
Set continued hearing on balance of relief requested in motion for approximately 90 days, by which time court should have a better sense of whether there is likely to be a reorganization within a reasonable period.
Final Ruling for March 30, 2021 (see order entered April 1, 2021):
Court entered adequate protection order requiring debtors to pay $55,261.26 to lender by close of business on April 9, 2021. (Lender will promptly pay taxes and bear responsibility for any penalties if real property taxes not paid
10:00 AM
by April 10, 2021.) If debtors don't pay this amount by April 9, 2021, debtors must pay this amount plus an additional $5,526.10 by April 15, 2021. In addition, debtors must pay $22,972.26 by April 15, 2021 and $7,657.42 by the 15th of each calendar month thereafter. Payments must be by wire or other immediately available funds. Debtors can have one 14-day cure period. Continue hearing on balance of relief to May 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for May 11, 2021:
Docket does not reflect the filing of any declarations re default, and debtor filed status report reflecting that required payments have been made. Debtor requests that hearing be taken off calendar, but court intentionally set a continued hearing to consider the issue of whether the debtor is likely to be able to propose a confirmable plan within a reasonable period. What progress has the debtor made toward confirmation of a plan in this chapter 11 case? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut Annie Y Stoops Dylan J Yamamoto
Movant(s):
Give Back LLC Represented By Daniel A Lev
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01025 Choi et al v. SALLIE MAE, a Delaware Corporation
Docket 10
5/10/21 - Dennis N. Lueck, (267) 230-3959
Tentative Ruling for May 11, 2021:
Court held a status conference on April 6, 2021. Plaintiff failed to attend the status conference and failed to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. The Court issued an OSC re failure to prosecute on April 7, 2021.
Oppositions to that OSC were due April 27, 2021. The docket does not reflect the filing of any opposition to that OSC. Dismiss action for failure to prosecute.
Debtor(s):
Phillip G Choi Represented By
2:00 PM
Min W Suh
Defendant(s):
SALLIE MAE, a Delaware Represented By
Norman Norman Lueck
Joint Debtor(s):
Paula H Choi Represented By
Min W Suh
Plaintiff(s):
Phillip G Choi Represented By Min W Suh
Paula H Choi Represented By
Min W Suh
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01025 Choi et al v. SALLIE MAE, a Delaware Corporation
fr. 4-6-21
Docket 1
5/10/21 - Dennis N. Lueck, (267) 230-3959
If court dismisses action in response to OSC, take status conference off calendar.
Debtor(s):
Phillip G Choi Represented By Min W Suh
Defendant(s):
SALLIE MAE, a Delaware Represented By
Norman Norman Lueck
Joint Debtor(s):
Paula H Choi Represented By
2:00 PM
Min W Suh
Plaintiff(s):
Paula H Choi Represented By
Min W Suh
Phillip G Choi Represented By Min W Suh
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
11:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
11:00 AM
Docket 11
Debtor has not filed a certificate of credit counseling. Unless debtor completes credit counseling within the 180 days before the commencement of the bankruptcy case, debtor is not eligible to be a debtor in this bankruptcy case.
Dismiss case.
Debtor(s):
Jessica Gonzalez Represented By Speros P Maniates
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
[Presumption of undue Hardship]
Docket 12
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
YIBIN ADAM CHEN Represented By Alice Lin
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
fr. 12-16-20, 3-17-21
Docket 37
12/7/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 16, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Court is confused. The basis for the motion to dismiss appears to be movant's belief that it would have been able to file an adversary proceeding to bar debtor's discharge based on false oaths (under section 727(a)(4)) had it done so in a timely manner or that it holds a claim that is excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(7). But movant did not bring an action objecting to the debtor's discharge in a timely manner and it is now too late to do so. And why does the existence of a nondischargeable debt mean that this case should be dismissed? Where is the cause for dismissal? If the debtor failed to disclose assets in her schedules and actually still owns any of these undisclosed assets (which she denies), the trustee can pursue them.
11:00 AM
Why would dismissal of the case on these facts be in the best interest of creditors?
Deny motion.
3/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
5/6/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 6, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 12, 2021:
Tentative ruling from March 17, 2021 remains unchanged.
Debtor(s):
Jeannette Yvette Martello Pro Se
Movant(s):
California Department of Managed Represented By
Heather Messenger
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
fr. 4-15-15, 5-11-16, 11-9-16, 5-24-17, 1-10-18, 7-18-18, 3-20-19
fr. 12-18-19, 3-18-20, 6-3-20, 8-5-20, 10-7-20, 2-10-21
Docket 174
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/3/21 - Douglas Neistat, (818)382-6200
Relief from stay has already been granted to permit the parties to resolve their respective disputes in state court. Continue hearing on claim objection along with case status conferences as parties move forward with state court litigation.
5/9/16 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to November 9, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 11, 2016. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for November 9, 2016:
Continue status conference on objection and case status conference to May
11:00 AM
24, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than May 15, 2017. Appearances waived on November 9, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for May 24, 2017:
Court did not receive service copy of status report (which was due on May 15, but filed on May 18, 2017). Perhaps that is because it was addressed to the bin outside of Suite 1482, which does not exist anymore. Judge Bluebond is now in Suite 1534.
Counsel for the reorganized debtor states on page 3, at lines 21-22 of the report, "Trial is set for September 11, 2017, the trial is not expected to be continued." Yet attached to the status report is a copy of a stipulation to amend the case management order in which the parties request that the trial date be continued from September 11, 2017 to January 29, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. Perhaps counsel is trying to say that he does not believe the state court will grant the parties' mutual request for a continuance of the trial date?
Court is now confused. When do the parties actually anticipate that trial of the state court action is likely to occur? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for May 24, 2017:
Continue status conference to January 10, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 10, 2018:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to July 18, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 10, 2018.
4/18/18 -- Court approved compromise concerning reduction of $150,000 to Hospital's claim.
Tentative Ruling for July 18, 2018:
11:00 AM
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to March 20, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 18, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for March 20, 2019:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to December 18, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 20, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 18, 2019:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to March 18, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 18, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for March 18, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to June 3, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than May 26, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 18, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 3, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conferences to August 5, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than July 25, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 3, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conferences to October 7, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than September 25, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 5, 2020.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for October 7, 2020:
Continue case status conference to February 10, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than February 1, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 7, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for February 10, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue hearings to May 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than Apri 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 12, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue hearings to August 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than July 31, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Tower General Contractors Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Movant(s):
Tower General Contractors Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
11:00 AM
fr. 7-30-14, 8-20-14, 11-19-14, 1-21-15, 4-15-15, 10-14-15, 4-13-16, 11-9-16,
5-24-17, 1-10-18, 7-18-18, 3-20-19, 12-18-19, 3-18-20, 6-3-20, 8-5-20, 10-7-20,
2-10-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/3/21 - Douglas Neistat, (818)382-6200
6/18/14 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued case status conference to August 20, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file status report not later than August 6, 2014. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 30, 2014. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for August 20, 2014:
Debtor has withdrawn its request for authority to use cash collateral. If debtor has no ongoing operations and will not have any employees, should this case be converted to chapter 7? Hearing required.
8/26/14 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
11:00 AM
L/D to serve notice of bar date -- September 1, 2014 Bar date -- November 30, 2014
Cont'd status conference -- November 19, 2014 at 11:00 L/D to file updated status report -- November 10, 2014
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2014:
Set deadline for filing plan and continue case status conference to date that can serve as hearing on disclosure statement.
11/25/14 -- Court signed order setting following dates:
L/D to file plan and disclosure statement -- December 15, 2014 Hearing on disclosure statement -- January 21, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. Cont'd status conference -- January 21, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 21, 2015:
If court approves disclosure statement, continue status conference to date of confirmation hearing. If court continues hearing on disclosure statement, continue case status conference to same date.
Tentative Ruling for April 15, 2015:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Tentative Ruling for October 14, 2015:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to April 13, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than April 4, 2015.
Tentative Ruling for April 13, 2016:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to November 9, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than October 31, 2016.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for November 9, 2016:
Continue status conference on objection and case status conference to May 24, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than May 15, 2017. Appearances waived on November 9, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for May 24, 2017:
Continue case management conference to same date and time as continued hearing on claim objection.
Final Ruling for May 24, 2017:
Continue status conference to January 10, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than December 22, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for January 10, 2018:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's (belated) status report.
Continue case status conference to July 18, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than July 6, 2018.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 10, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for July 18, 2018:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to March 20, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than March 8, 2018.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 18, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for March 20, 2019:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to December 18, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor
11:00 AM
should file updated status report not later than December 6, 2019. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 20, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 18, 2019:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to March 18, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than March 4, 2020.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 18, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for March 18, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to June 3, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than May 26, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 18, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 3, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conferences to August 5, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than July 25, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 3, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conferences to October 7, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than September 25, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 7, 2020:
Continue case status conference to February 10, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than February 1, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 7, 2020.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for February 10, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue hearings to May 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than Apri 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 12, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue hearings to August 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report (with accompanying declaration) not later than July 31, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Tower General Contractors Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
11:00 AM
Docket 351
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/7/21 - Jess Bressi, (949)241-8967
5/11/21 - John N. Tedfor IV, (310) 277-0077
5/11/21 - Michael G. D'Alba , (310)-741-0990
5/11/21 Roye Zur, (310) 746-4495
Court is not in a position to resolve summarily whether the agreements
11:00 AM
between the parties are or are not true leases. Although the debtor may be entitled to cancel the lease at any time (i.e., is not required to lease the vehicle throughout the usable life of the vehicle) and does not have a nominal purchase option at the end of the required term, whether or not the debtor terminates the lease early, it is still required to pay the lessor the full settlement amount. Even if the lessee elects to surrender the vehicle at termination, it is still required to pay any shortfall between the net sales proceeds and the settlement amount and, tellingly, if the net proceeds generated exceed the settlement amount and any past due payments, the lessee gets a credit for the excess. In other words, the debtor cannot escape the obligation to pay the full value of the vehicle and is entitled to all of the benefits and burdens of ownership.
As an adversary proceeding may well be required to resolve this dispute (Rule 7001 requires the use of an adversary proceeding to determine the validity of a lien), pending the resolution of the dispute, the equities of the situation require that the lessor/lender receive adequate protection for the value of its interest in the vehicles. Court agrees with the debtor that, in this unusual case, the typical straightline depreciation over time commonly assumed with vehicles may not apply: demand for rental vehicles is rising as COVID-19 restrictions are being loosened and travel is increasing. (Debtor has agreed not to use the subject vehicles for cargo or delivery services.)
On the other hand, the mere fact that debtor would be unable to pay all of its lessors the full contractual amounts due under its leases (if that is the case) cannot be a sufficient showing to cause the equities to weigh in favor of an extension of time under section 365(d)(5). Neither can the debtor's desire to continue to withhold a portion of the payments due to strengthen its hand in negotiations, as these factors would exist in most or all bankruptcy cases.
Now that the Court has resolved AFC's objections to another transaction between the debtor and North Iowa, has the debtor made any progress in negotiations with North Iowa with regard to the vehicles that are the subject of this motion? (NOTE: AFC conceded in connection with that dispute that it cannot and will not assert a security interest in the vehicles if the agreements under which the debtors acquired possession are true leases.)
Hearing required.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
Docket 70
OFF CALENDAR. CASE WAS DISMISSED BY ORDER ENTERED APRIL 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Sinaloence Food Products & Represented By Michael Jay Berger
Movant(s):
Sinaloence Food Products & Represented By Michael Jay Berger
2:00 PM
Docket 133
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Christopher In Cho Represented By Robert K Lee
Glenn Ward Calsada
Joint Debtor(s):
Eun Soon Cho Represented By Robert K Lee
Glenn Ward Calsada
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
2:00 PM
Docket 40
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Susan Daum Goodman Represented By Steven Werth
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By Jeffrey L Sumpter
2:00 PM
Docket 57
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Kevin Wong Represented By
Phu D Nguyen
Joint Debtor(s):
Jenny Tam Represented By
Phu D Nguyen
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
MOVANT: TOORAK CAPITAL PARNTERS, LLC. fr. 3-9-21, 3-31-21
Docket 60
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/7/21 - Cindy Cripe, (310)203-5359
Tentative Ruling for March 9, 2021:
Court is not persuaded that there is a lack of adequate protection: the property is insured and there is no reason to believe that it is declining in value. Thus, relief from stay does not appear available under section 362(d) (1). With regard to section 362(d)(2), this is a chapter 11 case. Therefore, even if the debtor lacks equity in the property, relief from stay should not be granted if the property is necessary to an effective reorganization, which requires, among other things, that there be a reasonable prospect of reorganization within a reasonable period.
2:00 PM
Movant claims that the debtor's plan cannot be confirmed over its objection and that it will object to the debtor's plan. Debtor has filed a plan and disclosure statement and that disclosure statement is set for hearing on March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. It would be more appropriate for the Court to analyze whether there is a reasonable prospect of reorganization within a reasonable period once the Court has had an opportunity to consider the debtor's disclosure statement and plan. Therefore, continue hearing on motion for relief from stay to March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to coincide with hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for March 31, 2021:
Revisit motion for relief after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for May 12, 2021:
Revisit motion for relief after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
Movant(s):
Toorak Capital Partners, LLC Represented By Tanya Behnam
2:00 PM
Docket 57
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/7/21 - Cindy Cripe, (310)203-5359
Court has a number of questions and concerns with regard to the form of the debtor's plan and disclosure statement:
Plan and disclosure statement need to include some discussion of why the debtor brought a motion seeking to value the property at $880,000 if it now contends the property is worth only $700,000. What led to the filing of the motion in the first place? What led the debtor to change its mind as to value?
Treatment of Class 1(c) is confusing. The debtor is proposing to pay the secured claim in full in cash on the effective date. Description doesn't make any sense. According to the debtor, if the property is worth $700,000 and the debtor pays the senior liens (the PACE/HERO liens) in full in cash, and that leaves only $541,611.19 as the remaining value of the collateral, why is the debtor paying $650,000 in satisfaction of this claim? This would be more
2:00 PM
than 100 percent payout when the plan only provides a 5 percent distribution to unsecured creditors. It is inappropriate to pay senior classes more than payment in full.
Court rejects Toorak's argument about needing a court order for the PACE/HERO loans to be in first position. Court assumes that these loans were obtained prepetition. The structure of these loans is that they are repaid along with/with the same priority as real property taxes due with regard to the property. That is the way these loans are structured. They have the same priority as real property taxes.
Plan and disclosure statement need to provide more information about the contribution from Asiel Luna. According to the plan, his father is retaining his 100 percent ownership of the property notwithstanding the fact that the sun is supplying a new value contribution of $870,000. What is Asiel receiving? Is this a gift to the debtor? A gift to the debtor's father? A loan to the father? A loan to the debtor? The plan and disclosure statement need to specify, and court agrees that we need something more in the disclosure statement to demonstrate ability to pay than a mere statement to this effect. A copy of a bank statement with this amount on deposit or evidence of a line of credit, etc. would be appropriate.
Court agrees with Toorak that feasibility requires a finding that confirmation is not likely to be followed by the need for more liquidation or reorganization. The debtor is cashing out everyone on the effective date, so, provided the new value contribution is made, the court is not concerned about plan payments, but what is the debtor's game plan for moving forward? The debtor would then own the property free and clear. Will the reorganized debtor obtain new construction financing at that point? Will it be enough to complete the construction? The disclosure statement is utterly silent on what happens after confirmation.
What does Toorak claim is its correct unsecured claim amount? Even with the higher property valuation, Toorak is undersecured, so its claim will not include post-petition interest but it can include default interest up through and including the petition date.
2:00 PM
At best, there are only two impaired classes -- class 1(c) (Toorak's secured claim) and Class 2 (the class of unsecureds). Even with the $311,000 claim amount currently in the disclosure statement for Toorak, Toorak holds a large enough class 2 claim to prevent this class from voting in favor of confirmation. Where is the debtor's impaired consenting class?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for May 12, 2021:
Debtor has filed a notice of withdrawal of the plan that is the subject of this disclosure statement. OFF CALENDAR.
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
Movant(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
2:00 PM
fr. 3-31-21
Docket 56
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/7/21 - Cindy Cripe, (310)203-5359
OFF CALENDAR. THE PLAN THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
2:00 PM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/7/21 - Cindy Cripe, (310)203-5359
5/11/21 - Eryk R. Escobar, 202-934-4168
11/24/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
L/D to serve bar date notice -- November 23, 2020 Bar date -- December 31, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- December 2, 2020 at 10:00 (no status report required)
Tentative Ruling for December 2, 2020:
2:00 PM
Set deadline for filing plan of reorganization and continue status conference to date that can serve as date of hearing on disclosure statement.
12/7/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd case status conference -- February 24, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file plan and disclosure statement -- January 6, 2021 Hearing on disclosure statement -- February 24, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Requirement to file status report waived.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Continue case status conference to March 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with debtor's disclosure statement. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 31, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar. Tentative Ruling for May 12, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 207. If case remains in subchapter V, neither court nor parties in interest has had sufficient opportunity to review debtor's subchapter V plan to ascertain whether it contains sufficient disclosures and whether and when it should be set for hearing. Moreover, subchapter V trustee has not had a sufficient opportunity to familiarize herself with this case to take a position or offer input with regard to the debtor's new subchapter V plan.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
2:00 PM
Docket 91
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/7/21 - Cindy Cripe, (310)203-5359
5/11/21 - Eryk R. Escobar, 202-934-4168
This bankruptcy case was filed on September 30, 2020, more than 7 months after the effective date of Subchapter V. Bankruptcy Code section 1189(b) requires a debtor in a subchapter V case to file a plan within 90 days after the entry of an order for relief unless the court extends the deadline because it finds that the need for an extension is attributable to circumstances for which the debtor should not justly be held accountable. Courts had permitted debtors in cases that were pending when subchapter V became effective to elect to proceed in subchapter V even though they had failed to file plans within the required time period because not having been able to proceed under subchapter V could be seen as a circumstance for which the debtor should not be held accountable. That is not the case for this debtor.
This debtor could have elected to file under subchapter V in the first place or could have made this election months ago. Instead, this debtor did NOT
2:00 PM
make the election, waited until well after the 90 days had elapsed on February 5, 2021 to file its plan. (And it has withdrawn that plan and filed a new one on April 29, 2021 -- approximately 210 days after the entry of the order for relief.) The entire structure of subchapter V is to create a speedy, streamlined process for the reorganization of small businesses. There are many benefits afforded to a debtor who elects to proceed in this manner, but the debtor needs to take the good with the bad. The debtor cannot obtain all the benefits of subchapter V without accepting the burdens as well. There is no way for this debtor to go back in time and file a plan in a timely manner and there are no circumstances sufficient to warrant a retroactive extension of the 90-day plan filing deadline.
If this debtor wants to proceed under subchapter V, it should move to dismiss this chapter 11 case and file a new case under subchapter V. Enter order declaring debtor's election to proceed under subchapter V to be ineffective.
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
Trustee(s):
Susan K Seflin (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 74
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/7/21 - Cindy Cripe, (310)203-5359
5/11/21 - Eryk R. Escobar, 202-934-4168
Motion is based on debtor's failure to pay quarterly fees and file MORs. Debtor claims to have now paid the overdue fees and filed the missing MORs. Is the debtor now in full compliance with US Trustee requirements?
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Extend the SARE Deadline Under Section 362(d)(3) or, in the Alternative,
(2) Abandon the Estate's Interest in Certain Real Property
Docket 182
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/7/21 - Edward Hays, (949)413-7223 5/7/21 - Richard Marshack, (714)624-8000
5/14/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing SARE deadline (by consent) to May 28, 2021 and continuing hearing to May 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 18, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
James R Selth
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
VIN# 5LMJJ2HT8JEL01124 MOVANT: CAB WEST, LLC.
Docket 785
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/20/21 - Sheryl Ith, (714)431-1029
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Samuel Michael Saber Represented By Charles T Marshall
Movant(s):
Cab West LLC Represented By
Randall P Mroczynski Sheryl K Ith
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Elissa Miller
10:00 AM
MOVANT: NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/24/21 - Austin Nagel, (925)577-3430
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Raquel Felix Represented By
Lauren M Foley
Movant(s):
Nissan Motor Acceptance Represented By Austin P Nagel
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST
Docket 11
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/21/21 - Marjorie Johnson, (951)778-9878
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Thanura Dilshan Senarath Parana Represented By
Jasmine Firooz
Movant(s):
Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By
Marjorie M Johnson
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
19STCV24509, State Court Case. MOVANT: DESTINY MUNOZ
Docket 11
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Christiane Friess-Turgel Represented By
Michael H Raichelson
Movant(s):
Destiny Munoz Represented By Corey A Carter
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: 1ST SOURCE BANK fr. 2-23-21, 3-2-21, 3-17-21
Docket 163
ZoomGov Appearance by:
2/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 2, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021
2/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Condition continuation of the automatic stay on the debtor's continuing to make adequate protection payments. Court agrees that debtor needs to provide adequate protection to protect the lender from depreciation even with regard to idle vehicles, but the debtor is not only paying adequate protection
10:00 AM
payments calculated with regard to the number of miles each vehicle is driven, it is also paying interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on all amounts due. Lender has no right to receive interest payments as a component of adequate protection, even if it is oversecured and therefore entitled to add post-petition interest to the amount of its claim. The manner in which the debtor has been calculating per mile depreciation appears reasonable and court has no problem with payments of interest at 6 percent rather than 7. These are adequate protection payments that need not correspond in any way with the amount of interest that may be accruing as a matter of contract. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that depreciation of idle vehicles occurs at a more rapid rate than this.
Court agrees that calculations should start as of petition date. If debtor has not made sufficient adequate protection payments to cover the amount of depreciation that its calculations reflect since that date, it will need to make up the missing payments.
Court agrees that lender should be provided information about damage to vehicles. Debtor should keep lender apprised when damage occurs and should report to lender how it intends to address the problem in a timely manner. Further, if sales have occurred from which proceeds have not been remitted to lender, debtor needs to account for and remit any withheld proceeds.
Court rejects lender's argument that vehicles are not necessary to an effective reorganization. Debtor is in the business of renting vehicles and it is utilizing these vehicles. Debtor cannot run a car rental business without vehicles to rent; and debtor is not currently in a position to purchase a new fleet of vehicles or to withstand a loss of 25 percent of its current fleet.
Final Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, continue hearing to May 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Any supplemental evidence must be filed and served by May 18, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
10:00 AM
Has any progress been made since March 17 hearing? Tentative ruling remains unchanged.
5/24/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
1st Source Bank Represented By Haleh C Naimi
10:00 AM
VIN# WDDHF5KB9EB000061 MOVANT: BANK OF THE WEST
Docket 15
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Thanura Dilshan Senarath Parana Represented By
Jasmine Firooz
Movant(s):
Bank of the West Represented By
Mary Ellmann Tang
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: FIRST REPUBLIC BANK
Docket 66
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
1369 Londonderry Estate, LLC Represented By Todd L Turoci
Movant(s):
First Republic Bank Represented By Alan I Nahmias Mel Aranoff
10:00 AM
MOVANT: AL MILLER & SONS ROOFING CO., INC.
Docket 180
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/7/21 - Caroline Djang, (949)263-6586
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Al Miller & Sons Roofing Co., Inc. Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas J Polis
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
10:00 AM
v. Doug Wall Construction, et al MOVANT: TANDEM WEST GLASS, INC.
Docket 181
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/7/21 - Caroline Djang, (949)263-6586
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Tandem West Glass, Inc. Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas J Polis
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
10:00 AM
MOVANT: SIX PLUS, LLC.
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Court has already instructed movant to refile a LEGIBLE document, and movant has failed to do so. Either movant's printer needs toner or movant needs a new printer, but the motion is not sufficiently legible. Court would deny motion without prejudice on that ground alone, but it appears that the motion should be denied with prejudice for the reasons set forth below.
It appears from what the court was able to make out that movant does not claim a security interest in any of the property against which it seeks to enforce its claims. Movant is a judgment creditor of the debtor who seeks to enforce its money judgment against otherwise unencumbered property of the estate. The court would not grant such relief to an unsecured creditor. If
10:00 AM
movant believes that the case was filed in bad faith, it should move to dismiss the case.
There do not appear to be any prior filings. The prior case identified in the motion appear to be cases filed by the debtor's husband before the debtor and her husband were married.
Debtor(s):
Cesar Guillermo Garcia Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Joint Debtor(s):
Yara Adilia Garcia-Espinoza Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Movant(s):
Six Plus, LLC. Represented By
S Sophi Nosrati
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: ALBERT ISSACO C/O SUTTER HILL INVESTMENTS fr. 9-29-20, 10-20-20, 12-8-20, 2-9-21, 5-11-21
Docket 44
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 20, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 29, 2020.
10/6/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
11/30/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 9, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 8, 2020.
1/29/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
10:00 AM
Court approved a sale of the subject property by order entered March 22, 2021. Has the sale closed? Is this motion now moot? Hearing required.
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
Kyle Henry Walkenhorst Represented By Michael E Clark
Movant(s):
ALBERT ISSACO c/o Sutter Hill Represented By
Edward G Schloss
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Rosendo Gonzalez
10:00 AM
MOVANT: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION fr. 8-11-20, 10-20-20, 12-8-20, 2-9-21, 5-11-21
Docket 38
5/20/21 - Eric Enciso, (561)241-6901
7/27/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 20, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 11, 2020.
10/6/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
11/30/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 9, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 8, 2020.
1/27/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2021.
10:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Trustee filed a declaration thnat sale has closed Deny motion as moot. Appearances waived. Court will prepare order.
Debtor(s):
Kyle Henry Walkenhorst Represented By Michael E Clark
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association Represented By Sean C Ferry Byron B Mauss
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Rosendo Gonzalez
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:16-01294 Diamond, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff v. Flanagan et al
fr. 8-30-16, 10-4-16, 11-29-16, 4-4-17, 4-25-17, 5-9-17, 6-13-17, 8-22-17,
10-3-17, 2-6-18, 2-13-18, 6-5-18, 9-11-18, 10-23-18, 11-27-18, 2-27-19
fr. 6-11-19, 9-17-19, 1-28-20, 4-14-20, 7-21-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20, 12-22-20,
3-2-21
Docket 1
4/29/21 - Notice of Dismissal filed.
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/11/16 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to October 4, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for November 29, 2016:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
3/21/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 25, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 4, 2017.
4/24/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 13, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 9, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for June 13, 2017:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
8/14/17 -- Court approved stipulation extending certain dates and continuing hearing to October 3, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 22,
2017.
Tentative Ruling for October 3, 2017:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
2/5/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 13, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for February 13, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar. 2/20/18 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 5, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- May 22, 2018
2:00 PM
Discovery cutoff -- August 17, 2018
Tentative Ruling for June 5, 2018:
Extend discovery cutoff to March 2019 and order the parties to mediation.
6/11/18 -- Court approved order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- September 11, 2018 at 2:00 pm L/D to serve and file joint status report -- August 28, 2018 L/D to complete discovery -- March 29, 2019
Tentative Ruling for September 11, 2018:
Continue status conference until early January, 2019. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for November 27, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Tentative Ruling for February 27, 2019:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar. 3/8/19 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 11, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- May 28, 2019 Court will bifurcate issues and try valuation first.
L/D to conduct nonexpert discovery on valuation issues is continued to June 28, 2019
L/D to designate expert witnesses and exchange expert witness reports -- June 28, 2019
L/D to conduct expert witness discovery -- August 19, 2019
3/20/19 -- Court approved stipulation extending time for trustee to respond to
2:00 PM
request for production of documents and interrogatorires to April 18, 2019 and extending deadline for defendants to file accounting to March 18, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for June 11, 2019:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days and order the parties to complete a day of mediation prior to the date of the continued status conference.
6/21/19 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- September 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- September 3, 2019
Court will bifurcate issues and try valuation first.
L/D to conduct nonexpert discovery is continued to September 26, 2019 L/D to designate expert witnesses and exchange expert witness reports -- September 26, 2019
L/D to conduct expert witness discovery -- November 18, 2019 L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- July 5, 2019 Deadline to complete mediation -- next status conference
7/1/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for September 17, 2019:
Set new deadlines for exchange of expert witness reports and completion of mediation.
9/26/19 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- January 28, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file updated status report -- January 14, 2020
L/D to complete mediation -- January 28, 2020
L/D to conduct nonexpert fact discovery -- December 30, 2019
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- December 30, 2019 L/D to conduct expert witness discovery -- February 28, 2020
2:00 PM
12/30/19 -- Court entered scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- April 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file updated status report -- March 31, 2020
L/D to complete mediation -- April 13, 2020
L/D to conduct nonexpert fact discovery -- March 30, 2020
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- March 30, 2020 L/D to conduct expert witness discovery -- May 29, 2020
3/25/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing dates as follows: Cont'd status conference -- July 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file updated status report -- July 7, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- July 21, 2020
L/D to conduct nonexpert fact discovery -- June 30, 2020
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- June 30, 2020 L/D to conduct expert witness discovery -- August 29, 2020
Tentative Ruling for July 21, 2020:
Discuss with the parties the status of efforts to settle the matter and possible new dates for certain of the deadlines set forth above.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Where are the parties with regard to settlement? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
It appears that both parties believe an additional day of mediation may be productive (provided defendant's co-counsel attends). Order parties to complete a second day of mediation with the participation of defendants' co- counsel. Extend deadline for completion of discovery and set date/deadlines for pretrial motions and pretrial conference.
Final Ruling for December 1, 2020:
2:00 PM
Continue hearing to December 22, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. to permit parties to complete another day of mediation. Waive requirement that status report be filed.
Tentative Ruling for December 22, 2020:
Were the parties successful in resolving the matter at mediation? Hearing required.
2/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021.
3/5/21 -- Court approved order granting motion for approval of settlement.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Action has been dismissed. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Video Symphony Entertraining Inc Represented By
Dean G Rallis Jr
Defendant(s):
Michael Gerard Flanagan Represented By Samuel Price Michael G Flanagan
Michael Gerard Flanagan, as trustee Represented By
Samuel Price
Alice Yick Flanagan, as trustee of Represented By
Samuel Price
Video Symphony, LLC Represented By Samuel Price
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Richard K. Diamond, Chapter 7 Represented By Michael G D'Alba Howard Kollitz Walter K Oetzell
Trustee(s):
Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael G D'Alba Howard Kollitz Sonia Singh
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:16-01480 Diamond, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff v. Flanagan et al
fr. 1-10-17, 4-4-17, 4-25-17, 5-9-17, 6-13-17, 8-22-17, 10-3-17, 2-6-18, 2-13-18,
6-5-18, 9-11-18, 10-23-18, 11-27-18, 2-27-19, 1-28-20, 6-11-19,
9-17-19,4-14-20 7-21-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20, 12-22-20, 3-2-21
Docket 1
4/29/21 - Notice of Dismissal filed.
ZoomGov Appearance by:
12/22/16 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 4, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. and waiving status report for that conference. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 10, 2017. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
3/21/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 25, 2017 at
2:00 PM
2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 4, 2017.
HEARING CONTINUED TO MAY 9, 2017 AT 2:00 P.M. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 25, 2017.
4/24/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 13, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 9, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for June 13, 2017:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
8/14/17 -- Court approved stipulation extending certain dates and continuing hearing to October 3, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 22,
2017.
Tentative Ruling for February 6, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
2/5/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 13, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for February 13, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar. 2/20/18 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 5, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- May 22, 2018 Discovery cutoff -- August 17, 2018
Tentative Ruling for June 2, 2018:
Extend discovery cutoff to March 2019 and continue status conference
2:00 PM
approximately 90 days.
6/11/18 -- Court approved order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- September 11, 2018 at 2:00 pm L/D to serve and file joint status report -- August 28, 2018 L/D to complete discovery -- March 29, 2019
Tentative Ruling for October 23, 2018:
Continue to trail this action along with matter on calendar as number 215.
Tentative Ruling for June 11, 2019:
Continue to trail this action along with matter on calendar as number 200.
6/21/19 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- September 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (Requirement that status report be filed is waived)
L/D to conduct discovery -- November 18, 2019
Tentative Ruling for September 17, 2019:
Do any deadlines need to be extended in this adversary proceeding?
9/26/19 -- Court approved scheduling order vacating discovery cutoff and waiving requirement that status report be filed in connection with January 28, 2020 status conference.
Tentative Ruling for January 28, 2020:
Continue status conference to April 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to coincide with continued status conference in related matter. Parties need not file status report in connection with April status conference. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 28, 2020.
2:00 PM
3/31/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to coincide with status conference in related matter. Parties need not file status report in connection with July status conference.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 14, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 21, 2020:
Continue status conference to date of continued status conference for matter no. 200.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Let matter continue to trail matter no. 200.
Tentative Ruling for December 22, 2020:
Revisit status after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 2.
2/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Action has been dismissed. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Video Symphony Entertraining Inc Represented By
Dean G Rallis Jr
Defendant(s):
Alice Yick Flanagan Represented By Samuel Price
Alice Yick Flanagan, as trustee of Represented By
Samuel Price
2:00 PM
Michael Gerard Flanagan Represented By Samuel Price
Michael Gerard Flanagan, as trustee Represented By
Samuel Price
Plaintiff(s):
Richard K. Diamond, Chapter 7 Represented By Michael G D'Alba Howard Kollitz
Trustee(s):
Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael G D'Alba Howard Kollitz Sonia Singh
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01173 Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Sahni et al
fr. 8-27-19, 10-1-19, 11-5-19, 12-10-19, 2-25-20, 6-9-20, 7-14-20, 10-20-20,
12-1-20, 2-23-21, 3-17-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/29/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to August 19, 2019 and continuing status conference to October 1, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 27, 2019.
8/19/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to September 18, 2019 and continuing status conference to November 5, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 1, 2019.
9/17/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant to
2:00 PM
respond to complaint to October 10, 2019.
10/18/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 10, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR NOVEMBER 5, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for February 25, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on motion to dismiss.
4/10/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing defendant's deadline to respond to complaint to June 17, 2020 and continuing status conference to July 14, 2020 at 2:00 pm. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2020:
According to status report, defendant would like to file motion to withdraw reference. What would the basis of such a motion be? Discuss timing of such a motion with parties.
Continue status conference approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to continued status conference.
7/17/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to complete mediation -- October 20, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- August 10, 2020 L/D to file joint status report -- October 6, 2020
8/11/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
At request of the parties, continue status conference to December 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. No new status report required. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
2:00 PM
Did the parties participate in a mediation on October 19, 2020? If so, what was the outcome? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Parties report that matter has been settled. Continue status conference to a date after anticipated hearing date of motion for approval of compromise (or, if motion will be filed using notice and opportunity for hearing procedure, continue status conference to a date that will give the court a sufficient opportunity to process the anticipated motion).
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on motion for approval of compromise.
3/22/21 -- Court approved order approving compromise for entry.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Court continued status conference to May 25, 2021 to give the trustee an opportunity to close the adversary proceeding pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement.
Docket does not reflect any new filings by the trustee. How does the trustee intend to proceed? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Lite Solar Corp. Represented By Leslie A Cohen Stephen A. Weaver
Defendant(s):
Ranbir S Sahni Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Totalis Energy, LLC Represented By
2:00 PM
Leslie A Cohen
Plaintiff(s):
Brad D. Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Aaron E DE Leest Zev Shechtman
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Represented By Eric P Israel
Aaron E DE Leest Sonia Singh
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01177 Acra Machinery, Inc., a California corporation et v. Avakian
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20, 1-5-21, 3-2-21,
3-31-21, 4-27-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Continue status conference for approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
12/27/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Final Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report not later than February 25, 2020. Parties should lodge an order appointing mediators not later than December 24, 2020 and should
2:00 PM
complete a day of mediation not later than March 10, 2020. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order. Impose sanctions of $150 each on counsel for parties for failing to file joint status report in a timely manner.
Did the parties complete a day of mediation as previously ordered by the Court? If not, why not?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/7/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
7/10/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- July 7, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- September 15, 2020
Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Why didn't the parties complete mediation by the deadline that the court established for this purpose? Hearing required.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to complete mediation to October 5, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
2:00 PM
What is the status of this matter? Did the parties in fact participate in a mediation by the deadline established by the court for this purpose? Hearing required.
11/3/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- January 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- December 22, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- December 21, 2020
12/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to February 21, 2021
Status conference continued to March 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to January 19, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 5, 2021
2/19/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to March 22, 2021
Status conference continued to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to March 16, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Have the parties now completed discovery? Does either party anticipate filing any pretrial motions? Hearing required.
3/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation extending discovery cutoff to April 19, 2021 and continuing status conference to Apri 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2021:
2:00 PM
Where is status report that should have been filed by April 13, 2021? Hearing required.
4/27/21 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to complete discovery -- May 19, 2021
L/D to file joint status report -- May 11, 2021 OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Have the parties now completed discovery? If so, set deadline for filing of pretrial motions and date for pretrial conference.
Debtor(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Defendant(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Plaintiff(s):
ACRA SEIKI, Inc., a California Represented By Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
Acra Machinery, Inc., a California Represented By
Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01177 Acra Machinery, Inc., a California corporation et v. Avakian
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20, 1-5-21, 3-2-21,
3-31-21, 4-27-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Continue status conference for approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
12/27/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Final Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report not later than February 25, 2020. Parties should lodge an
2:00 PM
order appointing mediators not later than December 24, 2020 and should complete a day of mediation not later than March 10, 2020. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order. Impose sanctions of $150 each on counsel for parties for failing to file joint status report in a timely manner.
Did the parties complete a day of mediation as previously ordered by the Court? If not, why not?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/7/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
7/10/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- July 7, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- September 15, 2020
Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Why didn't the parties complete mediation by the deadline that the court established for this purpose? Hearing required.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to complete mediation to October 5, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
What is the status of this matter? Did the parties in fact participate in a mediation by the deadline established by the court for this purpose? Hearing required.
11/3/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- January 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- December 22, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- December 21, 2020
12/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to February 21, 2021
Status conference continued to March 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to January 19, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 5, 2021
2/19/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to March 22, 2021
Status conference continued to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to March 16, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Have the parties now completed discovery? Does either party anticipate filing any pretrial motions? Hearing required.
3/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation extending discovery cutoff to April 19, 2021 and continuing status conference to Apri 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 30, 2021.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2021:
Where is status report that should have been filed by April 13, 2021? Hearing required.
4/27/21 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to complete discovery -- May 19, 2021
L/D to file joint status report -- May 11, 2021 OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
OFF CALENDAR. DUPLICATE OF NUMBER 203.
Debtor(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Defendant(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Plaintiff(s):
ACRA SEIKI, Inc., a California Represented By Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
Acra Machinery, Inc., a California Represented By
Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01121 Pringle v. Cho
fr. 7-21-20, 10-20-20, 12-15-20, 2-23-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Answer to complaint was due on June 18, 2020. Parties may not simply grant open ended extensions of response deadline without court approval. Set new deadline for defendant to respond to complaint. (Parties may submit written stipulation if they would like to further extend deadline.) Set continued status conference and direct parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/28/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- October 6, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- October 20, 2020
L/D for defendant to file and serve response to Trustee's complaint -- August 24, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediator -- August 10, 2020
8/10/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
L/D to lodge order appointing mediator -- November 10, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- December 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
2:00 PM
L/D to file joint status report -- December 1, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- December 15, 2020 OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
1/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- May 11, 2021 L/D to attend mediation -- May 25, 2021
L/D to serve and file resonse to complaint -- April 30, 2021 OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
11/9/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to lodge order appointing mediator -- January 19, 2021
Cont'd status conference -- February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- February 9, 2020
L/D to complete mediation -- February 23, 2021
L/D to file and serve response to trustee's complaint -- January 19, 2021 L/D to complete mediation -- December 15, 2020
OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 15, 2020.
5/4/21 -- Court approved compromise. Pursuant to compromise, trustee will be accepting promissory note and deed of trust for remainder of settlement payment and will be dismissing adversary proceeding.
5/6/21 -- Court approved order dismissing action. OFF CALENDAR.
Debtor(s):
Ho Young Cho Represented By Kelly K Chang
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Steve Cho Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
John P. Pringle Represented By Toan B Chung
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Toan B Chung
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01117 Retail Capital Partners, LLC. v. Oh et al
fr. 7-14-20, 11-3-20, 2-2-21, 4-6-21
Docket 4
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Why don't the parties want this matter sent to mediation? Hearing required. 8/11/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for November 3, 2020:
Did the parties participate in a mediation on October 27, 2020. If so, what was the outcome? If not, why not?
If matter did not settle, set discovery cutoff for approxiamtely 120 days and final status conference for approximately same time frame.
2:00 PM
11/13/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting continued status conference for February 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. and discovery cutoff for January 31, 2021. Parties should file joint status report not later than January 19, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
Parties report that discovery is complete. Set a deadline for filing any pretrial motions and a date for pretrial conference.
2/5/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- April 6, 2021 at 2 L/D to file pretrial motions -- February 23, 2021
L/D to have pretrial motions heard -- April 6, 2021
Tentative Ruling for April 6, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar.
5/11/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Defendant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
2:00 PM
Joint Debtor(s):
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
Plaintiff(s):
Retail Capital Partners, LLC. Represented By Joshua J Herndon
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01623 Moshkovich v. Bobs, LLC et al
fr. 2-2-21, 3-16-21
fr. 3-17-21
Docket 19
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
On January 27, 2021, court continued hearing on trustee's motion to abandon to February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Continue hearing on motion to dismiss and status conference to March 16, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties need not file updated status report for that status conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 16, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with trustee's motion to abandon the action.
3/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
2:00 PM
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
5/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation dismissing action and taking status conference and hearing on motion to dismiss off calendar. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Defendant(s):
Bobs, LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Movant(s):
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Plaintiff(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01623 Moshkovich v. Bobs, LLC et al
fr. 11-17-20, 2-2-21, 3-16-21
fr. 3-17-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar.
12/2/20 -- Court entered order on motion to dismiss denying motion as to all claims other than 6th claim for relief (fraudulent transfer) and 7th claim for relief (elder abuse). The motion is granted with leave to amend as to 6th claim for relief and granted without leave to amend as to 7th claim for relief. Amended complaint must be filed by December 18, 2020. Defendant must respond to amended complaint by January 8, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
2:00 PM
On January 27, 2021, court continued hearing on trustee's motion to abandon to February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Continue hearing on motion to dismiss and status conference to March 16, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties need not file updated status report for that status conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 16, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with trustee's motion to abandon the action.
3/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
5/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation dismissing action and taking status conference and hearing on motion to dismiss off calendar. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Defendant(s):
Bobs, LLC Represented By
David Jacob
Rommy Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Barry Shy Represented By
David Jacob
Plaintiff(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By
2:00 PM
Thomas H Casey
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01029 Moss Bros. Toyota v. Preciado, Jr.
Docket 7
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Vacate OSC as moot. Action has already been dismissed. No appearance required. Court will prepare order.
Debtor(s):
Victor Manuel Preciado Jr. Represented By Omar Zambrano
Defendant(s):
Victor Manuel Preciado Jr. Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Moss Bros. Toyota Represented By Michael S Geller
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01029 Moss Bros. Toyota v. Preciado, Jr.
fr. 4-13-21, 4-20-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Docket does not reflect return of summons. Was summons and complaint served in a timely manner? If not, why not? If not, plaintiff needs to obtain replacement summons as original summons has become stale.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Plaintiff has requested dismissal with prejudice. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Victor Manuel Preciado Jr. Represented By Omar Zambrano
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Victor Manuel Preciado Jr. Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Moss Bros. Toyota Represented By Michael S Geller
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
fr. 11-18-20, 1-12-21, 2-24-21
Docket 519
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/20/21 - Barrett Marum, (605)815-2688
5/24/21 - David Neale, (310)229-3320 5/24/21 - Richard Steelman, (310)229-3339
Final Ruling from January 12, 2021:
Court rejected claimants' argument that damages arising from the debtor's abandonment of the lease, as represented by the state court judgment, are not capped by 502(b)(6). Judge Neiter calculated the maximum amount of damage for lease termination damages under section 502(b)(6) and this amount will not increase because the state court judgment came out higher. There is nothing to litigate on these issues. Judge Neiter's order capping the damages at $1,066,000 remains the law of the case.
2:00 PM
Judge Neiter did not enter an order that was intended to be final on the issue of the extent to which the legal fees should be included within the cap (i.e., the 90/10 split). Give parties an opportunity to conduct discovery before court conducts an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
State court's decision to make an award of fees and costs jointly and severally in favor of Melrose and Simantob does not make the cap of section 502(b)(6) inapplicable. With regard to both claimants, court will need to determine extent to which fees relate to litigation over lease termination damages (and are therefore within cap) and extent to which fees relate to other disputes (and are therefore not capped).
Court set a discovery cutoff of May 28, 2021 with regard to the attorneys' fees and costs component of the claim.
Court ordered parties to brief whether or not cap of section 502(b)(6) would still apply to the claim if claimant asserts that it was defrauded into entering into the lease and whether the determination made by the state court that claimant's fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitation should be given preclusive effect in this contested matter. Court instructed parties to file simultaneous briefs on these issues not later than February 3, 2021 and instructed them to file reply briefs not later than February 16, 2021. Court set a continued hearing for February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
The fraud claim that Melrose seeks to assert is that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease. Its damage claims therefore remain subject to the 502(b)(6) cap. The additional tort theory of recovery does not change the amount of the damage that may be allowed as against the estate. (See tentative ruling for matter no. 103 as to whether a claim in excess of this amount may be asserted against the debtors on the theory that it is nondischargeable.)
Therefore, the only remaining issues to be resolved in the context of this claim objection are the allocation of attorneys' fees as between the capped and uncapped portion of the claim and the interest accrual calculation (and
2:00 PM
whether interest can accrue from and after November 21, 2013 on fees that were incurred after this date or whether interest should start to accrue on the later of November 21, 2013 and the date on which the relevant fees were incurred or awarded).
The portion of the fees attribuable to litigation over lease termination damages is within the cap (and therefore will not be allowed). The portion that is attributable to something other than litigation over the lease termination damages is not within the cap and may therefore be allowed.
Discuss with the parties how to move forward with the resolution of these issues. (Court has already set discovery cutoff of May 28, 2021 with regard to attorneys' fee issues.)
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Sustain debtor's evidentiary objections to exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the claimant's request for judicial notice to the extent that claimant seeks to introduce these documents to prove the truth of the contents of the documents. In response to a request for judicial notice (or even sua sponte), court can take judicial notice of the fact that a document was filed. Court can also take judicial notice of admissions made by a party in prior filings with the court, but that is different from admitting the documents to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein.
Parties agree that the relevant interest rate is 5 percent, as that is what the plan provided. With regard to the dates on which interest began to accrue on the attorneys' fees awarded, under Lucky United Properties Investment Inc. v. Lee, 213 Cal. App. 4th (2013), post judgment interest on a fee award runs from the date the amount of the fee award is fixed, not from the date of the original judgment. Therefore, interest on the amounts awarded for fees incurred at trial begins to accrue on the date the trial fees order was entered (June 14, 2018) and interest on the amounts awarded for fees incurred in connection with the appeal begins to accrue on the date the appellate fees were awarded (November 12, 2020). Sustain objection to the extent that claimant seeks to bar claimant from recovering interest on its attorneys' fees for any period prior to these dates.
2:00 PM
Are parties on track to complete discovery re allocation issues by May 28, 2021? If not, when will the parties be in a position to schedule an evidentiary hearing to resolve allocation issues?
Debtor(s):
Ramesh Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
Joint Debtor(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
Movant(s):
Jack Simantob, 8451 Melrose Represented By Dean G Rallis Jr Kyra E Andrassy Lewis R Landau
Trustee(s):
Thomas C Hebrank (TR) Represented By
J. Barrett Marum Robert K Sahyan Aaron J Malo
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:12-01538 8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad
U.S.C. Sections 523(a)(2)(A) & (B) and 523(a)(6) Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))
fr. 11-18-20, 1-12-21, 2-24-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/20/21 - Barrett Marum, (605)815-2688
5/24/21 - David Neale, (310)229-3320 5/24/21 - Richard Steelman, (310)229-3339
12/22/20 -- Court approved stipulation confirming that nothing precludes claimants from liquidating the amount of their claim in state court.
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021 (to the extent applicable to adversary proceeding):
2:00 PM
The fraud claim that Melrose seeks to assert is that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease. Its damage claims therefore remain subject to the 502(b)(6) cap. If Melrose can demonstrate that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease (if this claim is not barred by any applicable statute of limitations), the capped claim would become nondischargeable, but the amount of the claim would remain capped to the same extent as its breach of lease claim. The additional tort theory of recovery does not change the amount of the damage. If the capped claim has already been or will be paid in full, there is no need to determine whether or not the claim should be excepted from the discharge.
The court recently approved a stipulation between the parties. Is it their intention to resolve the extent to which a fraud claim is or is not barred by the statute of limitations in state court? Similarly, is it the parties' intention to litigate the malicious prosecution claims in state court?
Final Ruling for January 12, 2021 (insofar as it relates to adversary proceeding):
Before it can determine how to adjudicate this adversary proceeding, court needs to resolve the following issues: (1) whether the cap of 502(b)(6) applies to any nondischargeable liability that the debtors may have for fraud in the inducement; and (2) whether the state court's finding that the plaintiff's fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitations should be given preclusive effect in this adversary proceeding.
Parties are to file simultaneous briefs with regard to these issues not later than February 2, 2021. Reply briefs will be due not later than February 16, 2021. Court will conduct a continued hearing on February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Adversary proceeding was never actually dismissed by Judge Neiter. He merely took the hearing off calendar to permit litigation to proceed in state court as between the parties, anticipating that they would return to bankruptcy
2:00 PM
court once they had reduced the claims to judgment for a determination as to dischargeability. That never happened, as Judge Neither retired and, there being no further hearings on calendar, the court "closed" the adversary proceeding. It was never dismissed. (This is why Judge Bluebond never takes a matter "off calendar" until it has been resolved--so that it will not fall through the cracks.)
This court is bound by the state court's determination as to when the statute of limitations began to run on the plaintiff's fraud claim. According to the state court, the statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff learned that the representations upon which it had relied were untrue, namely on October 22, 2010 when the debtor testified in a deposition that he did not own any property.
This adversary proceeding, including a claim for fraud in the inducement, was filed in a timely manner for nondischargeability purposes on April 2, 2012.
The underlying state law statute of limitations had not run on the fraud claim as of that date. Conversely, in state court, the plaintiff attempted to add a fraud claim for the first time in is motion to amend complaint in August of 2014. The state court found that the three year statute of limitations had run on October 22, 2013. As this adversary proceeding, including the fraud claims, had been filed by then, there is no statute of limitations problem with this action.
The only authority this Court has been able to locate so far on the issue of whether or not the cap of section 502(b)(6) applies with regard to a nondischargeable claim that may be asserted as against the debtors, as distinguished from a claim that may be asserted against the debtors' estate, is a comment in dicta in a concurrence by former bankruptcy judge Bruce Markell. According to Judge Markell, "claims by landlords for fraud in procuring a lease would be limited by § 502(b)(6)'s limitation on landlords' claims against the estate, with amounts in excess of the limitations being valid against the debtor but unnecessary to the administration of the bankruptcy case.” Deitz v. Ford (In re Deitz), 469 B.R. 11, 29 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012).
The rationale behind limiting the amount of a damage claim for breach of lease (ensuring that the landlord's claim does not dwarf the claims of other
2:00 PM
creditors, entitling the landlord to a disproportionate share of available assets) does not apply in the context of a nondischargeability action as against the debtor, and section 502(b)(6) appears in a section of the code that discusses allowance of claims against the estate, not in section 523 as a limitation on a debtor's nondischargeable liability. Moreover, the introductory language of section 523 says that a discharge does not discharge an individual debtor "from any debt," not from liability for any allowed claim. There is nothing in the statutory language to suggest that any of the limitations of section 502 on the claims that may be allowed affect the amount of any debt that may be excepted from discharge under section 523.
Therefore, in the absence of authority to the contrary, this Court is inclined to agree with Judge Markell that the cap of 502(b)(6) should not apply to limit the size of a claim that can be asserted as against the debtors outside of the administration of the bankruptcy case. As a result, even if the entirety of the plaintiff's allowed claims as against the estate are paid in full, this action is not moot in that the debtors have potential exposure for liability in excess of these amounts, provided an appropriate showing can be made under section 523(a).
The state court judgment determines the amount of the lender's damages, but does not have any bearing on whether or not these amounts can be excepted from the discharge. Set discovery cutoff and schedule continued status conference for approximately 90 days. Explore with parties whether this is an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation at this juncture. (Discuss other issues/problems the court has observed with plaitiff's theories of recovery.)
Final Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Tentative ruling became final ruling: (1) 502(b)(6) cap does not limit amount of nondischargeable liability; (2) there is no statute of limitations problem: this action was filed before the applicable statute of limitations ran; (3) plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to prove that the amount of the state court judgment should be treated as nondischargeable, but it cannot increase the amount of that judgment or add a claim for punitive damages.
2:00 PM
Continue status conference to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file an updated status report by May 11, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Set discovery cutoff for late 2021. Discuss with parties why they don't want this matter sent to mediation.
Debtor(s):
Ramesh Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
Defendant(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By
John-patrick M Fritz David L. Neale Richard P Steelman Jr
Joint Debtor(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
Plaintiff(s):
8451 Melrose Property, LLC Represented By Jeffrey I Golden Beth Gaschen Kyra E Andrassy
Michael A. Taitelman Lewis R Landau
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Thomas C Hebrank (TR) Represented By
J. Barrett Marum Robert K Sahyan Aaron J Malo
2:00 PM
fr. 11-6-19, 2-11-20, 3-10-20, 5-5-20, 7-14-20, 10-20-20, 11-10-20, 2-23-21
Docket 40
NONE LISTED -
Deem objections to be an adversary proceeding for procedural purposes and discuss with parties relationship between this proceeding and the pending litigation in LASC. Should that action be removed to bankruptcy court and consolidated with these objections? Should the court grant relief from stay and permit issues to be litigated in state court?
Hearing required.
3/4/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to May 5, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and extending deadline for filing joint status report to April 21, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 10, 2020.
4/21/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to July 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and extending deadline for filing joint status report to June 30, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2020:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/22/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to file joint status report -- October 6, 2020
2:00 PM
L/D to complete mediation -- October 20, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- August 10, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- October 20, 2020 at 2:00 pm
8/10/20 -- Court signed order appointing mediators.
10/5/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to November 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., extending the deadline to complete mediation to October 26, 2020 and moving the deadline to file a joint status report to October 27, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for November 10, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for February of 2021 and final status conference for approximately same time frame. Extend deadline for completion of mediation so that parties can participate in another day of mediation.
11/13/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- February 9, 2021 L/D to conduct discovery -- February 26, 2021 L/D to complete mediation -- February 23, 2021
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Extend discovery cutoff by 60 days. Order the parties to complete a second day of mediation. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions and set pretrial conference.
2/24/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file pretrial motions -- April 13, 2021
L/D for pretrial motions to be heard -- May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to complete discovery -- April 30, 2021
L/D to complete second day of mediation -- May 25, 2021
2:00 PM
5/4/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Alfredo F Torres Represented By Antonio John Ibarra John D Monte
Movant(s):
Alfredo F Torres Represented By Antonio John Ibarra John D Monte
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich
2:00 PM
Docket 93
NONE LISTED -
5/4/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Alfredo F Torres Represented By Antonio John Ibarra John D Monte
Movant(s):
Vincente and Theresa Torres Represented By John D Monte
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01036 Rhino Bare Projects LLC et al v. Canico Capital Group, LLC et al
Docket 15
NONE LISTED -
ACTION HAS BEEN DISMISSED. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Defendant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
West Best Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Abraham Assil Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Movant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Daniel J McCarthy
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By
2:00 PM
Daniel J McCarthy
West Best Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Abraham Assil Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Plaintiff(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Daniel J McCarthy
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01036 Rhino Bare Projects LLC et al v. Canico Capital Group, LLC et al
West Best Capital Group, LLC, Abraham Assil fr. 4-21-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Continue status conference to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 27, 2021.
4/28/21 -- ACTION HAS BEEN DISMISSED. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Defendant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
West Best Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
2:00 PM
Abraham Assil Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
Plaintiff(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Daniel J McCarthy
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
[Presumption of Undue Hardship]
Docket 33
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Felix E Palacios-Sanchez Represented By Michael J Varisco
Movant(s):
Logix Federal Credit Union Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Damarie I DeBelius
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
[Presumption of Undue Hardship]
Docket 8
ZoomGov Appearance by:
According to the papers, debtor's son drives and pays for the vehicle. How old is debtor's son? (According to schedules, debtor has no dependents.) Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Svetlana Getachew Represented By Gregory Grigoryants
Movant(s):
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Ryan Forrest
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
$100 was due on 4/19/21;
$100 is due by 5/17/21;
$100 is due by 6/17/21
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Debtor paid first installment, but has not paid installments due April 19 or May 17, 2021. Another installment is due June 17, 2021.
Dismiss case.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Aaron Anthony Munoz Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Pro Se
Docket 10
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/25/21 - Douglas Neistat, (818)382-6200 5/25/21 - Jeremy Rothstein, (818)382-6200
Rulings on Petitioners' Evidentiary Objections:
Garcia Declaration
(Court has numbered the cells in the table that appears on pages 4 through 6)
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
10:00 AM
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Smith Declaration Overrule.
Tentative Ruling on Merits:
Court agrees with petitioners that secured creditors are not barred from being petitioning creditors; however, if they have no unsecured deficiency, the claims held by the remaining petitioners must satisfy the threshold amount required to commence a petition.
Court agrees further that final judgments are not considered to be the subject of a bona fide dispute, even if the debtor argues that it has a meritorious argument for setting aside the judgment or having it reversed on appeal. See In re Marciano, 708 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2013).
Further, the existence of a counterclaim does not necessarily mean that a claim is subject to a bona fide dispute. See In re Vortex Fishing Systems, Inc., 277 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2002).
The Court would not under any circumstances grant a motion to dismiss in an involutary case based on a contention that the petitioners do not meet the necessary requirements to commence an involuntary case until it has required the debtor to file the list of creditors referenced in Rule 1003(b) so that those creditors can be served with notice and given an opportunity to join in the petition if they so desire.
10:00 AM
Court is not in a position to summarily adjudicate that the claims asserted by any of these creditors is the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount. At best, the debtor has given the court sufficient information to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there is such a dispute, and it may well be that the conclusory statements made by the debtor's principal are insufficient to do even that.
Similarly, on this record, it appears highly likely that there will be at least three petitioning creditors whose claims will aggregate at least the amount necessary to satisfy the statutory threshold. At best, the debtor has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not this is the case. The court could not possibly adjudicate summarily that the petitioners' claims are insufficient to satisfy this threshold.
Moreover, in light of the sheer number of petitioning creditors and judgment liens asserted against the debtor and its assets, how could the court possibly adjudicate summarily that the debtor is generally paying its debts as they become due?
It is hard to understand why this motion was even brought. Debtor had to know that the Court would not grant such a motion. If debtor wishes to attempt to defend this petition on its merits, it will be free to do so, but the debtor needs to file the list of creditors referenced in Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 1003(b).
Debtor(s):
Advanced Environmental Group Represented By
Leslie A Cohen
Docket 1
10:00 AM
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/25/21 - Douglas Neistat, (818)382-6200 5/25/21 - Jeremy Rothstein, (818)382-6200
Set deadline for the debtor to file Rule 1003(b) statement. How much time do the parties need to conduct discovery in this matter? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Advanced Environmental Group Pro Se
Docket 7
10:00 AM
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/25/21 - Douglas Neistat, (818)382-6200 5/25/21 - Jeremy Rothstein, (818)382-6200
Rulings on Petitioners' Evidentiary Objections:
Garcia Declaration
(Court has numbered the cells in the table that appears on pages 4 through 6)
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. Lack of foundation.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is legal argument, not evidence.
Smith Declaration Overrule.
Tentative Ruling on Merits:
Court agrees with petitioners that secured creditors are not barred from being petitioning creditors; however, if they have no unsecured deficiency, the claims held by the remaining petitioners must satisfy the threshold amount required to commence a petition.
Court agrees further that final judgments are not considered to be the subject
10:00 AM
of a bona fide dispute, even if the debtor argues that it has a meritorious argument for setting aside the judgment or having it reversed on appeal. See In re Marciano, 708 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2013).
Further, the existence of a counterclaim does not necessarily mean that a claim is subject to a bona fide dispute. See In re Vortex Fishing Systems, Inc., 277 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2002).
The Court would not under any circumstances grant a motion to dismiss in an involutary case based on a contention that the petitioners do not meet the necessary requirements to commence an involuntary case until it has required the debtor to file the list of creditors referenced in Rule 1003(b) so that those creditors can be served with notice and given an opportunity to join in the petition if they so desire.
Court is not in a position to summarily adjudicate that the claims asserted by any of these creditors is the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount. At best, the debtor has given the court sufficient information to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there is such a dispute, and it may well be that the conclusory statements made by the debtor's principal are insufficient to do even that.
Similarly, on this record, it appears highly likely that there will be at least three petitioning creditors whose claims will aggregate at least the amount necessary to satisfy the statutory threshold. At best, the debtor has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not this is the case. The court could not possibly adjudicate summarily that the petitioners' claims are insufficient to satisfy this threshold.
Moreover, in light of the sheer number of petitioning creditors and judgment liens asserted against the debtor and its assets, how could the court possibly adjudicate summarily that the debtor is generally paying its debts as they become due?
It is hard to understand why this motion was even brought. Debtor had to know that the Court would not grant such a motion. If debtor wishes to attempt to defend this petition on its merits, it will be free to do so, but the
10:00 AM
debtor needs to file the list of creditors referenced in Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 1003(b).
Debtor(s):
Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Represented By
Leslie A Cohen
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/25/21 - Douglas Neistat, (818)382-6200 5/25/21 - Jeremy Rothstein, (818)382-6200
Set deadline for the debtor to file Rule 1003(b) statement. How much time do the parties need to conduct discovery in this matter? Hearing required.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Pro Se
Docket 430
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/25/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)394-4168
Grant motion, conditioned on payment of outstanding US Trustee fees. Once US Trustee has filed a declaration attesting to the fact that the fees have been paid, debtor can lodge an order granting motion and dismissing case (unless the debtor is not in a position to pay these amounts promptly, in which event, the hearing should be continued until the debtor is in a position to pay).
Debtor(s):
MedCoast Medservice Inc. Represented By Henry D Paloci
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
David Keith Gottlieb (TR) Represented By Ron Bender
Krikor J Meshefejian
Docket 355
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Did Molly Scott ever perform services for the benefit of Deco Enterprises? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/25/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)394-4168 5/25/21 - Crystle Lindsey, (310)207-1494
Does the debtor contemplate proposing and confirming a plan that pays all creditors in full? If not, what are the debtor's intentions with regard to recovery of the fraudulent transfer of $300,000 to OFD and how can the debtor justify not attempting to generate revenue by renting the property to a paying tenant? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Hilmore LLC Represented By
Crystle Jane Lindsey
10:00 AM
Docket
779
ZoomGov Appearance by: 5/24/21 - John Menchaca
5/24/21 - Elissa Miller, (213) 623-2311 5/24/21 - Aaron Juarez
5/24/21 - Jessie Rodriguez
None of the arguments advanced in the opposition as to the problems the trustee is likely to encounter in locating a buyer has any bearing on whether the court should permit the trustee to retain a broker to market the property. If the debtor's dire predictions come true, there will be no bidders, but this is not a reason for the trustee to not even attempt to locate a purchaser.
Moreover, none of the problems that the debtor has outlined are likely to be a problem in the context of a 363 sale. The court can enter an order giving the buyer clean title that should enable the buyer to acquire title insurance.
The opposition does not disclose what litigation the debtor is talking about, but, if the debtor is simply referring to his ongoing attempt to overturn the bankruptcy court order converting the case to chapter 7 or to reverse the
10:00 AM
order approving the compromise with Chase, none of this will have any bearing on the validity of any sale that the trustee may consummate to a good faith purchaser in the interim.
With regard to the broker's qualifications, the court is satisfied with the trustee's business judgment that this broker will be able to adequately market the property. Overrule objection. Approve application.
Debtor(s):
Samuel Michael Saber Represented By Charles T Marshall
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Elissa Miller
fr. 5-5-21
Docket 45
10:00 AM
(when prompted, enter meeting number and password shown above) ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
The notion of a confidential settlement in this context is problematic. Commencing an involuntary case is a public exercise. Other creditors and parties in interest have a right to know what consideration is being given to the petitioner as part of the settlement that makes an involuntary case unnecessary. Hearing required.
Final Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Continue hearing to May 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. DiSanto will file declaration with redacted version of settlement agreement not later than May 12, 2021. Court will review declaration and if it is satisfied with the information provided will take the hearing off calendar and approve the stipulation re dismissal.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Court has reviewed Mr. DiSanto's declaration and attachment. Approve stipulation re dismissal. HEARING OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Rogue Apparel Group Inc. Represented By
Anthony J Rothman Esq
Movant(s):
Coulter Ventures LLC dba Rogue Represented By
David L. Neale Todd M Arnold
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
When will debtor be able to resolve corporate status issues? Will the parties need to engage in discovery as to whether the debtor is generally paying its debts as they become due? Is there a dispute as to the number of creditors?
Hearing required.
2/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 31, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 10, 2021.
3/1/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 31, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
10:00 AM
Continue status conference to May 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with stipulation re dismissal. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 21, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on stipulation re dismissal.
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
Take status conference off calendar due to dismissal of bankruptcy case. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Rogue Apparel Group Inc. Represented By
Anthony J Rothman Esq
Extend the SARE Deadline Under Section 362(d)(3) or, in the Alternative,
(2) Abandon the Estate's Interest in Certain Real Property fr. 5-18-21
Docket 182
10:00 AM
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/18/21 - Ed Hays, (949)413-7223
5/24/21 - Alan Tippie, (213)626-2311 5/24/21 - Mark Houripian, (213)626-2311 5/25/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)394-4168 5/25/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000 5/25/21 - Christopher Rivas, (213)457-8000 5/25/21 - Jeffrey Van Wick, (951)894-7332
5/14/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing SARE deadline (by consent) to May 28, 2021 and continuing hearing to May 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 18, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
What, if any, progress has the trustee made toward a sale of any of the property? Which of the alternative forms of relief is the trustee seeking at this juncture? Hearing required.
5/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 9, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 26, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
11:00 AM
fr 5-11-16, 6-7-16, 7-21-16, 7-27-16, 9-28-16, 10-18-16, 11-29-16, 12-7-16,
3-8-17, 6-14-17, 7-11-17, 7-26-17, 8-15-17, 10-18-17, 1-10-18, 2-14-18, 3-1-18,
6-7-18, 10-17-18, 2-6-19, 8-7-19, 9-11-19, 12-11-19, 1-8-20, 1-9-20, 3-18-20,
5-6-20, 8-5-20, 10-21-20, 1-27-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
Tentative Ruling for August 16, 2017:
Court waived the requirement that the trustee file an updated status report in connection with this status conference and set this date as a holding date.
Are there any upcoming hearings scheduled in this chapter 11 case?
Final Ruling for August 16, 2017:
Continue status conference to October 18, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. Updated status report should be served and filed not later than October 6, 2017.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for October 18, 2017:
Continue case status conference to January 10, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
Disclosure statement should be noticed for same date and time, provided it is filed and served not less than 42 days before this date. Waive requirement of updated status report. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 18, 2017.
1/9/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to February 14, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 10, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for February 14, 2018:
Continue case status conference to March 1, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters on calendar at that date and time. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2018. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 6, 2018:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on plan confirmation.
Tentative Ruling for October 17, 2018:
Court has reviewed post-confirmation status report. Continue post- confirmation status conference to February 6, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Plan Trustee should file and serve updated status report not later than January 25, 2019. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 17, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for February 6, 2019:
Court has reviewed the trustee's status report and updated status report. Discuss with the parties' Mr. Hudson's decision to move the Pico location less than a mile away to a different location on La Brea.
Tentative Ruling for August 7, 2019:
Has Hudson made the second Shortfall Payment yet ($975,000)? If not, continue status conference until shortly after deadline for cure of this default
11:00 AM
(August 10, 2019) to see whether default is cured.
What is the status of the dispute with regard to the La Brea Restaurant? The occurrence of another restricted transaction without the trustee's consent constitutes yet another event of default under the plan. (NOTE: There is no meaningful distinction between closing the Pico location and driving it out of business, forcing it to close as unprofitable, by opening a new location less than a mile away on La Brea. No businessperson who was actually attempting to operate the Pico location profitably or to fulfill his obligations under the plan in good faith would do this.)
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for September 11, 2019:
Court has reviewed the plan trustee's status report. Continue case status conference to December 11, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Plan trustee should file and serve updated status report not later than December 2, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 11, 2019:
Continue case status conference to January 8, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. so that it can be after the foreclosure sale scheduled for December 12, 2019. Plan trustee need not file an updated status report. Counsel for trustee can report orally at the January 8, 2020 conference. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 11, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for January 9, 2020:
What, if anything, has transpired since the last status report? Did a foreclosure sale occur on December 12? If so, what happened at the sale? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for March 18, 2020:
Did the foreclosure proceed on March 16? If not, why not? How will the closure of restaurants in Los Angeles impact the trustee's ability to perform
11:00 AM
under the confirmed plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for March 18, 2020:
Parties have entered into a second amended forebearance agreement, postponing foreclosure to April 15, 2020 in exchange for an additional payment of $12,500. Continue status conference to May 6, 2020 at 11:00
a.m. Plan trustee should file updated status report addressing plan compliance issues not later than April 24, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for May 6, 2020:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue case status conference to August 5, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Plan trustee should file updated status report not later than July 24, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 6, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Court has reviewed the plan trustee's status report. Continue status conferences to October 21, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than October 9, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Court has reviewed the plan trustee's status report. Continue status conferences to January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than January 15, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 21, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Court has reviewed the plan trustee's status report. Continue status conferences to May 26, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than May 14, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JANUARY 27, 2021.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
Court has reviewed the plan trustee's status report. Continue status conferences to September 1, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than August 20, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 26, 2021.
Debtor(s):
East Coast Foods, Inc. Represented By Vahe Khojayan Philip E Strok
Michael Jay Berger
Trustee(s):
Bradley D. Sharp (TR) Represented By Zev Shechtman
Uzzi O Raanan ESQ John N Tedford IV
Brian Weiss Represented By
Robert S Marticello Philip E Strok Michael Simon Timothy W Evanston
Docket 1
11:00 AM
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/25/21 - Joseph Jeffrey, (949)757-1600
Tentative Ruling for April 29, 2020:
Set deadline for service of notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference approximately 90 to 120 days. Set deadline for filing updated status report.
4/29/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to mail notice of bar date -- May 15, 2020
Bar date -- July 10, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- August 5, 2020 at 11:00 L/D to file updated status report -- July 24, 2020
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Were the proofs of claim filed in line with the debtor's expectations or did anything surprising get filed? What does the debtor anticipate that its plan will look like?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for August 5, 2020:
11:00 AM
Continue case status conference to October 21, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than October 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Set deadline for filing sale motion and deadline for filing plan of reorganization.
10/23/20 -- Court entered scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for debtor to file sale motion -- November 25, 2020 Hearing on sale motion -- December 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Continued status conference -- December 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.
Requirement of updated status report is waived unless no hearing on sale motion is conducted at same time as status conference, in which event status report should be filed by December 4, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 16, 2020:
Although Court reserves the right to dismiss a case at a status conference in the order setting the initial status conference, court is concerned that a sua sponte dismissal would not provide sufficient notice to parties in interest. Continue case status conference to date that can serve as the date of a hearing on a motion to dismiss that the debtor should file.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
Continue status conference to May 26, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. (to see if debtor has filed motion for approval of sale procedures by that date). Debtor should file updated status report by May 14, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 10, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
Deny request that status report filed by RCLC be stricken, but grant debtor's request for a further continuance. Continue status conferences to September 1, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report not later than August 20, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 26, 2021.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Rancho Cielo Estates, LTD Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/25/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)394-4168
5/25/21 - Annie Stoops, (213)629-7410 5/25/21 - Aram Ordubegian, (213)629-7410
Set deadline for debtor to file notice of bar date and bar date. If debtors are able to arrange for refinancing for their properties, would this case remain in chapter 11 or do the debtors anticipate being in a position to move to dismiss these cases? Hearing required.
11:00 AM
3/8/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
L/D to file proofs of claim -- 4/30/21
L/D for governmental units to file proofs of claim -- 7/14/21 L/D to serve notice of bar date -- 3/8/21
Cont'd status conference -- 5/26/21 at 11:00 a.m. L/D to file updated status report -- 5/14/21
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
According to declaration from debtor's counsel, on May 11, 2021, he received proof from the escrow company that the earnest money deposit of $1.5M had been deposited into escrow. Proposed buyer was also suposed to sign a purchase agreement by that date. Has that occurred? If not, when is this supposed to occur? And how long does the buyer have to complete its due diligence? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut Annie Y Stoops
MOVANT: GIVE BACK, LLC. fr. 3-30-21, 5-11-21
Docket 59
11:00 AM
5/25/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)394-4168
5/25/21 - Annie Stoops, (213)629-7410 5/25/21 - Aram Ordubegian, (213)629-7410
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Grant motion insofar as it requests comfort order clarifying that automatic stay does not preclude movant from exercising its rights and remedies as against nondebtors under its guaranties and membership interest pledge agreements.
Debtors response to the motion is that there is a sizeable equity cushion, based upon its appraisal; however, opposition does not dispute or even respond to movant's contention that the value of movant's collateral is declining in value due to debtors' continuing failure to pay real estate taxes. Trustee's sale guaranties reflect that all of the properties are tax defaulted for nonpayment of taxes going back to 2018. (Accrual of interest on debtors' obligations to movant does not constitute a loss in value for which movant is entitled to receive adequate protection.)
Court acknowledges that, even if there is no equity in property, as these lots are the debtors' only assets, they are necessary to any possible reorganization, but the Court is not yet in a position to determine whether any reorganization is likely to occur within a reasonable period. Court is not inclined to schedule an evidentiary hearing as to the value of the property, as the court will not rely on the existence of an equity cushion as adequate
11:00 AM
protection when there is an actual and quantifiable diminution in value occurring due to the nonpayment of real property taxes and the accrual of interest thereon.
What is the aggregate amount of real estate taxes currently outstanding with regard to the lots and at what rate do these unpaid taxes accrue interest?
How much more in real estate taxes will become delinquent if not paid by April 10? If debtors want an opportunity to try to reorganize their affairs in chapter 11, they will need to at least keep the size of the debt senior to movant from increasing while they attempt to do so.
Enter adequate protection order that conditions continuation of the automatic stay on the debtors' remaining current with post-petition real estate taxes and making monthly payments to movant in an amount that is not less than the amount of interest and penalties that are accruing monthly on the unpaid real property taxes.
Set continued hearing on balance of relief requested in motion for approximately 90 days, by which time court should have a better sense of whether there is likely to be a reorganization within a reasonable period.
Final Ruling for March 30, 2021 (see order entered April 1, 2021):
Court entered adequate protection order requiring debtors to pay $55,261.26 to lender by close of business on April 9, 2021. (Lender will promptly pay taxes and bear responsibility for any penalties if real property taxes not paid by April 10, 2021.) If debtors don't pay this amount by April 9, 2021, debtors must pay this amount plus an additional $5,526.10 by April 15, 2021. In addition, debtors must pay $22,972.26 by April 15, 2021 and $7,657.42 by the 15th of each calendar month thereafter. Payments must be by wire or other immediately available funds. Debtors can have one 14-day cure period. Continue hearing on balance of relief to May 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for May 11, 2021:
Docket does not reflect the filing of any declarations re default, and debtor filed status report reflecting that required payments have been made. Debtor
11:00 AM
requests that hearing be taken off calendar, but court intentionally set a continued hearing to consider the issue of whether the debtor is likely to be able to propose a confirmable plan within a reasonable period. What progress has the debtor made toward confirmation of a plan in this chapter 11 case? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
Debtor claims to be in compliance with adequate protection order. Revisit motion after conclusion of status conference.
Debtor(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut Annie Y Stoops Dylan J Yamamoto
Movant(s):
Give Back LLC Represented By Daniel A Lev
fr. 5-12-21
Docket 351
11:00 AM
Zoomgov Appearance by:
5/24/21 - John Tedford, 310)923-0798 5/24/21 - Michael D’Alba
5/24/21 - Danya Elbendary (listen only) 5/24/21 - Jess Bressi, (949)732-3712
5/24/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
Tentative Ruling for May 12, 2021:
Court is not in a position to resolve summarily whether the agreements between the parties are or are not true leases. Although the debtor may be entitled to cancel the lease at any time (i.e., is not required to lease the vehicle throughout the usable life of the vehicle) and does not have a nominal purchase option at the end of the required term, whether or not the debtor terminates the lease early, it is still required to pay the lessor the full settlement amount. Even if the lessee elects to surrender the vehicle at termination, it is still required to pay any shortfall between the net sales proceeds and the settlement amount and, tellingly, if the net proceeds generated exceed the settlement amount and any past due payments, the lessee gets a credit for the excess. In other words, the debtor cannot escape the obligation to pay the full value of the vehicle and is entitled to all of the benefits and burdens of ownership.
11:00 AM
As an adversary proceeding may well be required to resolve this dispute (Rule 7001 requires the use of an adversary proceeding to determine the validity of a lien), pending the resolution of the dispute, the equities of the situation require that the lessor/lender receive adequate protection for the value of its interest in the vehicles. Court agrees with the debtor that, in this unusual case, the typical straightline depreciation over time commonly assumed with vehicles may not apply: demand for rental vehicles is rising as COVID-19 restrictions are being loosened and travel is increasing. (Debtor has agreed not to use the subject vehicles for cargo or delivery services.)
On the other hand, the mere fact that debtor would be unable to pay all of its lessors the full contractual amounts due under its leases (if that is the case) cannot be a sufficient showing to cause the equities to weigh in favor of an extension of time under section 365(d)(5). Neither can the debtor's desire to continue to withhold a portion of the payments due to strengthen its hand in negotiations, as these factors would exist in most or all bankruptcy cases.
Now that the Court has resolved AFC's objections to another transaction between the debtor and North Iowa, has the debtor made any progress in negotiations with North Iowa with regard to the vehicles that are the subject of this motion? (NOTE: AFC conceded in connection with that dispute that it cannot and will not assert a security interest in the vehicles if the agreements under which the debtors acquired possession are true leases.)
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for May 12, 2021:
At request of parties, court continued hearing to May 26, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give the parties a further opportunity to attempt to resolve this dispute.
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
What is the status of this matter? Has any progress been made toward a consensual resolution? Hearing required.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
Docket 14
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/20/21 - Michele Assayag, (714)427-7057
Approve stipulation. Waive appearances. Trustee is authorized to upload order consistent with tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
Moon Collection, Inc. Represented By Young K Chang
Movant(s):
Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Michele S Assayag
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN # 2DWBS4Y9C56JAA85553
MOVANT: FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Thanura Dilshan Senarath Parana Represented By
Jasmine Firooz
Movant(s):
Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By
Marjorie M Johnson
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# 1FTEX1CP0KKD13069
MOVANT: PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Jose Edgardo Alarcon Represented By Christopher J Lauria
Movant(s):
Pentagon Federal Credit Union Represented By Joseph C Delmotte
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01060 Yoo, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Bresler
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/25/21 - Toan Chung, (323)724-3117
Continue status conference approximately 90 to 120 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
Debtor(s):
Caroline Marie Bresler Park Represented By Heather J Canning
Defendant(s):
Peter Henry Bresler Represented By Gerard D Launay
Plaintiff(s):
Timothy J. Yoo, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Toan B Chung
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By John P Pringle Toan B Chung
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01177 Bradley, M.D. et al v. Dickens, III
fr. 10-20-20, 2-23-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Set deadline for defendant to file motion for summary judgment/partial summary adjudication. Continue status conference to date of hearing on that motion. Discuss with parties whether mediation would be helpful in this matter and, if so, when.
10/21/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for plaintiff to file motion for summary judgment and defendant to file motion for judgment on pleadings -- January 12, 2021
Deadlines for oppositions and replies shall be as set forth in the Local Rules (Court corrected order lodged by parties to reflect these deadlines)
Hearing on motions and continued status conference -- February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. (Requirement of filing a status report in connection with that conference is waived.)
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Do the parties need to conduct any discovery? Set deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of any additional pretrial motions. Schedule pretrial conference and require parties to lodge joint pretrial order not later than two weeks prior to date scheduled for pretrial conference.
2/26/21 -- Court approved order granting in part motion for summary
2:00 PM
adjudication. Judgment granted for plaintiff on first claim for relief ($44,648.66 nondischargeable pursuant to section 532(a)(6)) and denying without prejudice on other claims for relief. Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied. Discovery cutoff set for June 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 1, 2021:
Discovery cutoff is currently June 30, 2021. According to status report, plaintiff expects to complete hnis discovery on/by July 9, 2021. Does plaintiff need an extension of the discovery cutoff?
NOTE: Defendant's lack of consent to the entry of final orders by the bankruptcy court is ineffective here. This is a 523(a)(6) action and is a core proceeding. Court as authority to enter a final judgment.
Set deadline for filing pretrial motions and pretrial conference. Order parties to upload joint proposed pretrial order 14 days before pretrial conference.
Debtor(s):
Harold Winfred Dickens III Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Harold Winfred Dickens III Represented By William T Heywood
Plaintiff(s):
Kenneth S. Bradley, M.D. Represented By Joseph P Fleming
Southern California Pain Represented By Joseph P Fleming
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
FR. 5-6-21
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
4/22/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Oppositions will be due May 20, 2021. Replies will be due May 27, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 6, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 3, 2021:
US Trustee contends it would be abusive for debtor to remain in chapter 7. Debtor has moved to convert case to chapter 13. Does US Trustee oppose conversion? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Meghan Leigh Puhr Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Movant(s):
United States Trustee (LA) Represented By Kelly L Morrison
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
TREVON K DAVIS Represented By Atyria S Clark
Movant(s):
United States Trustee (LA) Represented By Kelly L Morrison
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#1.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: DAIMLER TRUST
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
Alina Hovhanessian Represented By Sevan Gorginian
Movant(s):
Daimler Trust Represented By
Sheryl K Ith
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: AL MILLER & SONS ROOFING CO., INC. fr. 5-25-21
Docket 180
Zoomgov Appearance by:
6/2/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000 6/2/21 - Christopher Rivas, (213)457-8000
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Al Miller & Sons Roofing Co., Inc. Represented By
Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
v. Doug Wall Construction, et al MOVANT: TANDEM WEST GLASS, INC. fr. 5-25-21
Docket 181
NONE LISTED -
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Tandem West Glass, Inc. Represented By Thomas J Polis
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
VIN# SJAAM2ZV4KC024985 MOVANT: PORSCHE LEASING LTD.
Docket 221
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/7/21 - Stacey Miller, (818)205-9955
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Porsche Financial Services, Inc.dba Represented By
Stacey A Miller
Porsche Leasing Ltd. Represented By Stacey A Miller
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
Docket 189
Zoomgov Appearance by:
6/7/21 - Daniel Price, (512)499-5281 6/7/21 - Daniel Schecter: 424.653.5577 6/7/21 - Peter Gilhuly: 213.891.8720 6/7/21 - Nima Mohebbi 213.891.7482 6/7/21 - John Pyun: 213.891.8807;
6/7/21 - Miri Gold: 424.653.5580;
6/7/21 - Alexandra Gianelli: 213.891.7602 6/7/21 - Tara McCortney: 213.891.7817 6/7/21 - Dikla Unatin: 310.801.6424
6/7/21 - Dean Unatin: 310.592.5365
6/7/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168 6/7/21 - Jeffrey Reisner, (213)439-9452 6/7/21 - Joshua Taylor, (202)429-6281
10:00 AM
6/7/21 - William Lobel, (714)549-7181 6/7/21 - Allison Libeu, (949)273-4153 6/7/21 - Marshall Camp (213)788-4541
6/7/21 - Stephen Tensmeyer, (801)799-5720 6/7/21 - Michael VanderLey, (415)370-6395 6/7/21 - Najah Shariff, (213)894-2534
6/7/21 - Richard Wynne, (310)785-4600 6/7/21 - Bennett Speigel, (310)785-4600 6/7/21 - Edward McNeilly, (310)785-4600 6/7/21 - Kaitlyn Hittleman, (Listen Only) 6/7/21 - Steve Green
6/7/21 - Gerry Seli
6/7/21 - Robert Klyman, (213)229-7562
[Tentative Ruling withheld]
Rulings on Evidentiary Objections:
(Unatin's objections to Vanderly Declaration)
Sustain to the extent that debtor is offering dire predictions offered by Vanderly as testimony or evidence rather than merely argument. Although declarant might have been able to lay an appropriate foundation for some of the opinions expressed, the declaration fails to do this. It does not specify
10:00 AM
which humans performed the analysis and what Vanderly's role in this process was. It does not provide sufficient facts for this court to conclude that Mr. Vanderly has expertise in predicting what a chapter 11 trustee would or would not be able to do in this case or what the debtor's employees are likely to do if a trustee were appointed and it is far from clear that this is even an appropriate subject matter for expert testimony. The declaration is pure speculation and is merely argument as to why the debtor contends creditors would be better served if the debtor is permitted to remain in control. Court accepts this document as additional argument in favor of the debtor's position, but it is not admissible evidence to this effect.
Unatins' Objection to Taylor Declaration
Sustain to the extent that debtor is offering the declaration as testimony or evidence as to what the IRS is likely to do rather than merely argument. The declaration is pure speculation and is merely argument as to why the debtor contends creditors would be better served if the debtor is permitted to remain in control. Court accepts this document as additional argument in favor of the debtor's position, but it is not admissible evidence to this effect.
Grant Unatins' Request for Judicial Notice, docket no. 313-4 (Exhibits 1-7). Tentative Ruling on Merits:
The debtor's empassioned objection to the Court's OSC re the appointment of a trustee misses the point. The debtor argues that it is error for the court to take judicial notice of the jury verdict and findings made in state court because the debtor has appealed those findings and that therefore the verdict and findings are not entitled to collateral estoppel effect. That is not what is happening here. This is not a 523 or 727 action in which the court is granting summary judgment to the plaintiff based on these findings. The court is not taking judicial notice of the truth of the factual findings made by the jury. As outlined in the OSC, the court has taken judicial notice that,
A jury of 12 people, after a six-week jury trial in a state court action between the debtor, on the one hand, and creditors Dikla and Dean Unatin (jointly, the “Unatins”), on the other, found in a lengthy and detailed verdict form that the Unatins were entitled to judgment in their favor on their claims against the debtor for fraud, breach of
10:00 AM
fiduciary duty, breach of contract and conversion and that the debtor's wrongful acts were done with malice, oppression and/or fraud; and
The state court in that action issued a statement of decision describing the jury's findings as follows: "On Verdict Form 1, the jury found in favor of Mrs. Unatin and against Mr. Gavrielli on all of her claims: breach of fiduciary duty regarding the Company, breach of fiduciary duty regarding the outside investments, fraud, conversion, breach of contract, and breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing.” The jury also found that Mr. Gavrielli "engaged in malice, oppression and/or fraud with respect to each of Mrs. Unatin's tort claims."
The court CAN take judicial notice of the fact that these events happened in its consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Recall that the relevant standard here is CAUSE for the appointment of a trustee. This court is not a court of appeals and will not retry all of the issues tried in state court to reach its own findings of fact as to whether or not the underlying facts occurred or act as a court of appeals to decide whether or not errors were made at the trial court level. And the court cannot simply sit back and wait until the state courts resolve the appeal to see whether the verdict and findings are upheld, as, by then, the court will have left a potentially unfit fiduciary to manage the entire reorganization effort. Appointing a chapter 11 trustee at that point would be tantamount to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The question is whether this debtor can be relied upon to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of his creditors in this chapter 11 case now. Apparently, it is this debtor's position that this Court should ignore entirely what happened at the trial court level because the debtor has filed an appeal. Anyone can file an appeal. The existence of the appeal does not mean that there is no cause for concern.
Ironically, although the debtor would have this court ignore entirely that there was enough evidence adduced at trial to persuade a trier of fact that the debtor engaged in egregious misconduct, the debtor urges this court to rely wholeheartedly on the trial judge's comment that the misconduct was unlikely to reoccur. It would be wholly inappropriate for this court to delegate its
10:00 AM
decision-making authority as to whether or not there is cause for the appointment of a trustee in this chapter 11 case to a state court judge who was deciding an entirely different issue.
The debtor argues that appointment of a chapter 11 trustee would interfere with the debtor's fresh start. This may be true, but the "fresh start" to which the debtor refers is for the honest but unfortunate debtor and it is far from clear that this debtor is honest but unfortunate. The filing of a bankruptcy case before entry of a final judgment on appeal is not a get out of jail free card that magically erases all that came before.
Appointment of a trustee is at the court's discretion, and wide discretion is afforded to the bankruptcy court under § 1104(a)(2). None of the cases cited by the debtor stands for the proposition that a court should utterly disregard allegations and findings made in a state court action as to relevant misconduct by the debtor for the purpose of assessing whether a trustee should be appointed if those findings are the subject of a pending appeal. As debtor acknowledges, section 1104 clearly provides that the cause to appoint a trustee may arise from prepetition conduct, and the conduct in question here -- managing assets in a manner that breached fiduciary duties -- is directly on point. But there is more.
As the U.S. Trustee points out, this debtor has not conducted himself in a manner designed to give this court any comfort that he has the best interests of creditors and other parties in interest at heart. The transfer of more than
$13 million dollars to accounts in Hong Kong under the control of his cousin as part of a tax scheme, for example, is alone sufficient to demonstrate that cause exists to appoint a chapter 11 trustee here. This debtor's track record demonstrates that he cannot be relied upon to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. (As the U.S. Trustee points out, the fact that the Unatins may have cooperated in this tax scheme is irrelevant, as they are not under consideration to serve as fiduciaries for the benefit of creditors in this case.)
The Court agrees with the U.S. Trustee that the involvement of a creditors' committee in this case cannot be relied upon as an effective substitute for the appointment of a trustee for the reasons outlined in his reply. The debtor has been the one at the negotiating table with the committee and has been the
10:00 AM
gatekeeper of all information. The committee has not independently verified any of the factual information provided by the debtor and did not even conduct examinations under oath. Moreover, it may be, as the Unatins allege, that the committee is comprised of the debtor's close friends, a majority of whom directly funded the debtor's state court litigation with the Unatins.
The court's concerns are not alleviated by the fact that the debtor has been working closely with the committee to improve the plan through mediation. The court ordered the parties to mediation to see whether mediation could resolve disputes between the debtor, on the one hand, and the Unatins, on the other (which has not occurred). The court requested the involvement of the committee for the purpose of making sure that the debtor and his sister did not conspire to achieve a result that would adversely affect creditors, but it was never this court's expectation that progress made as between the debtor and the creditors' committee would obviate the need to appoint a trustee here.
Nor is it of sufficient comfort that the debtor and the committee have retained competent professionals to represent their interests who are well qualified to counsel them as to their fiduciary duties. At the end of the day, these professionals obtain the information that they need to perform their jobs and the marching instructions that they need to move forward from the parties that they represent. A competent lawyer is not enough to protect the estate from a dishonest debtor in possession, particularly one who harbors extreme animosity toward certain of his unsecured creditors (namely, the Unatins) and has a well-documented desire to ensure that they recover as little as possible, which latter facts alone are sufficient cause to warrant the appointment of a trustee as well.
Debtor argues that the costs of administration would be increased by the appointment of a trustee, but that is not the only factor to be considered here. And it is far from apparent that this would actually be the case. The debtor's professional fees are already hefty. The appointment of a trustee may in fact decrease costs by bringing about a more expeditious resolution of this case and a higher and/or speedier recovery for creditors than the approach adopted to date by the debtor.
10:00 AM
Therefore, whether the standard is preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, the Court is persuaded that there is more than ample cause for the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee here. In fact, the Court is unable to recall an instance in its 20+ years on the bench in which the need for the appointment of a trustee was more compelling.
Issue order directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee as expeditiously as possible. Court is not inclined to include the additional provisions requested by the Unatins. The Court will leave it to the chapter 11 trustee to take appropriate steps to recover unearned portions of retainers, and there is no need to include provisions in the order that are already true as a matter of law.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:21-01034 Gavrieli et al v. Gavrieli et al
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
3/31/21 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference and hearing on motion to dismiss to; June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
5/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving motion to dismiss original complaint. Amended complaint to be filed not later than May 24, 2021. Any hearing on motion to dismiss that complaint will be held June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Defendant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
William N Lobel
Gavrieli Brands LLC Pro Se
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
10:00 AM
William N Lobel
Plaintiff(s):
Dikla Gavrieli Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dikla Gavrieli, derivatively on Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dean Unatin Represented By
Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:21-01034 Gavrieli et al v. Gavrieli et al
fr. 3-31-21, 4-27-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
3/31/21 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference and hearing on motion to dismiss to; June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
5/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving motion to dismiss original complaint. Amended complaint to be filed not later than May 24, 2021. Any hearing on motion to dismiss that complaint will be held June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Status conference continued to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.. OFF
CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
10:00 AM
Defendant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
William N Lobel
Gavrieli Brands LLC Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Dikla Gavrieli Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dikla Gavrieli, derivatively on Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dean Unatin Represented By
Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
2:00 PM
fr. 11-6-19, 2-11-20, 3-10-20, 5-5-20, 7-14-20, 10-20-20, 11-10-20, 2-23-21
Docket 40
NONE LISTED -
Deem objections to be an adversary proceeding for procedural purposes and discuss with parties relationship between this proceeding and the pending litigation in LASC. Should that action be removed to bankruptcy court and consolidated with these objections? Should the court grant relief from stay and permit issues to be litigated in state court?
Hearing required.
3/4/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to May 5, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and extending deadline for filing joint status report to April 21, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 10, 2020.
4/21/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to July 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and extending deadline for filing joint status report to June 30, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2020:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/22/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to file joint status report -- October 6, 2020
2:00 PM
L/D to complete mediation -- October 20, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- August 10, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- October 20, 2020 at 2:00 pm
8/10/20 -- Court signed order appointing mediators.
10/5/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to November 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., extending the deadline to complete mediation to October 26, 2020 and moving the deadline to file a joint status report to October 27, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for November 10, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for February of 2021 and final status conference for approximately same time frame. Extend deadline for completion of mediation so that parties can participate in another day of mediation.
11/13/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- February 9, 2021 L/D to conduct discovery -- February 26, 2021 L/D to complete mediation -- February 23, 2021
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Extend discovery cutoff by 60 days. Order the parties to complete a second day of mediation. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions and set pretrial conference.
2/24/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file pretrial motions -- April 13, 2021
L/D for pretrial motions to be heard -- May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to complete discovery -- April 30, 2021
L/D to complete second day of mediation -- May 25, 2021
2:00 PM
5/4/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
Issue OSC why debtor should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with this Court's February 24, 2021 order directing him to complete a second day of mediation by date of continued status conference.
Debtor(s):
Alfredo F Torres Represented By Antonio John Ibarra John D Monte
Movant(s):
Alfredo F Torres Represented By Antonio John Ibarra John D Monte
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich
2:00 PM
Docket 93
NONE LISTED -
5/4/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
Rulings on Evidentiary Objections:
As a preliminary matter, there is no authenticating declaration, so none of the exhibits should be admitted on that basis alone. In addition, movant's evidentiary objections appear well taken. Neither of the complaints is evidence as to the truth of any of the allegations contained therein. The settlement agreement is irrelevant and does not have any tendency to prove anything relevant to this claim objection. The letter (which identifies itself as confidential settlement negotiations) from Richard Cornell is inadmissible heresay (and even the author of the letter lacks personal knowledge of the facts asserted therein). (And it is worthy of note that the debtor would not under any circumstances have standing to assert a claim for elder abuse here. The debtor would not otherwise have been a beneficiary of the trust, and was not damaged by any alleged elder abuse of the Kohns. If the note had not been assigned to the claimant and had been transferred to a different relative of the decedant, amounts due under that note would still be due.) The marked up version of the restated trust agreement is similarly irrelevant. The remaining exhibits are hearsay and irrelevant. Sustain all evidentiary objections and strike exhibits offered by debtor.
Tentative Ruling on the Merits:
Even if the above-referenced exhibits were admissible, the motion should be granted. Debtor has offered no evidence whatsoever, let alone any admissible evidence, to
2:00 PM
support his contention that claimant obtained an assignment of the note and deed of trust by fraudulent means or via elder abuse or that the claimant has unclean hands. Moreover, debtor would not have standing to assert these claims in any event -- debtor was not damaged by any alleged misconduct on the claimant's part. None of the arguments advanced has any tendency to show that the note and deed of trust are invalid. But for the alleged misconduct of the claimant, someone else would be enforcing the note and deed of trust. The debtor is not damaged by virtue of the fact that it is the claimant rather than someone else enforcing this claim.
Grant claimant summary judgment that debtor's claim objection should be overruled. (Note: This does not resolve the amount due under the note. The court is confused by the claimant's calculations. Perhaps this issue can be resolved as between the claimant and the trustee?)
Debtor(s):
Alfredo F Torres Represented By Antonio John Ibarra John D Monte
Movant(s):
Vincente and Theresa Torres Represented By John D Monte
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich
2:00 PM
Docket 76
NONE LISTED -
To quote from the trustee's moving papers,
There is an ample record herein supporting a finding by this Court that the debtor’s amendment of his schedules to attempt to belatedly exempt his heretofore undisclosed “equitable interest” in the Kashlan Road Property is in bad faith and prejudicial to creditors. The debtor has clearly gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent the trustee from looking to the property to satisfy creditor claims. No interest in the property was disclosed in his initial filings and, indeed, the debtor even claimed to be single when in fact he was married to Connie Kim, the trustee of the Irrevocable Trust that he subsequently claimed was on title to the property. When the trustee became independently aware of the property and filed suit to recover and/or quiet title to it, the debtor filed a fraudulent motion to dismiss the lawsuit. He did not claim the exemption until well after Connie Kim, as trustee of the Irrevocable Trust, had been defaulted and an order had been entered for entry of a judgment against her and a motion for entry of a final, separate judgment against Ms. Kim was pending.
Furthermore, it had been necessary for the trustee to file suit to recover the property and/or to quiet title to it. As such, section 522(g) is applicable and the debtor clearly cannot claim an exemption on property that was not lost involuntarily and that he concealed in his initial bankruptcy filings.
Bankruptcy Code section 522(g) provides as follows:
Notwithstanding sections 550 and 551 of this title, the debtor may exempt under subsection (b) of this section property that the trustee recovers under section 510(c)(2), 542, 543, 550, 551, or 553 of this title, to the extent that the debtor could have exempted such property under subsection (b) of this
2:00 PM
section if such property had not been transferred, if—
(1)
such transfer was not a voluntary transfer of such property by the debtor; and
the debtor did not conceal such property; or
(2) the debtor could have avoided such transfer under subsection (f)(1)(B) of this section.
The transfer in question (the transfer to an irrevocable trust) was not a transfer of the kind referenced in section 522(f)(1)(B), as it is not a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in (i) household furnishings, household goods, wearing apparel, appliances, books, animals, crops, musical instruments, or jewelry that are held primarily for the personal, family, or household use of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor; (ii) implements, professional books, or tools, of the trade of the debtor or the trade of a dependent of the debtor; or
professionally prescribed health aids for the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.
The transfer that the trustee has now avoided was a voluntary transfer and the debtor made a variety of efforts to conceal the property, and the trustee has expended substantial resources toward the recovery and administration of this asset for the benefit of the estate. These facts are a textbook example of the kind of fact pattern in which section 522(g) prohibits a debtor from claiming an exemption in the property.
Sustain objection.
Debtor(s):
Eun Ho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang Donald E Iwuchuku
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01048 Dye v. Chen et al
fr. 5-5-20, 6-2-20, 8-4-20, 8-11-20, 10-27-20, 12-15-20, 3-30-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
4/3/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant to respond to complaint to April 17, 2020.
4/7/10 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant Chen to respond to complaint to May 1, 2020.
4/17/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant Wang to respond to complaint to May 1, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2020:
Continue status conference to June 2, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss filed by defendant Bin Wang. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 2, 2020:
See tentative ruling for matter no. 204. Continue status conference to August 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than two weeks prior to continued status conference. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 2, 2020.
6/4/20 -- Court approved order granting motion to dismiss with leave to amend and setting following dates:
2:00 PM
L/D for plaintiff to file amended complaint -- June 23, 2020
L/D for defendants to respond to amended complaint -- July 14, 2020 L/D to file updated status report -- July 21, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- August 4, 2020 at 2:00 pm.
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to August 11, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 4, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matter on calendar.
10/20/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference to December 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 27, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 15, 2020:
Continue status conference 90 to 120 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued mediation.
12/16/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file updated status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- January 5, 2021 Deadline to complete mediation -- March 30, 2021
1/11/21 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Why does plaintiff state in status report that matter is not yet at issue? Defendant filed an answer to the second amended complaint in November. Parties participated in a mediation that was unsuccessful on March 16, 2021, yet both parties indicate that they want this matter sent to mediation. Have
2:00 PM
parties explored with mediator his/her willingness to conduct another day of mediation? Hearing required.
4/6/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting discovery cutoff for September 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
Trustee reports that matter has been settled, that settlement payment is now due and that action will be dismissed once settlement payment is made.
Continue status conference to July 13, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to provide an opportunity for the settlement payment to be made and for the trustee to dismiss the action. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 8, 2021.
6/8/21 -- Court approved order dismissing action pursuant to settlement. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Shaoqiang Chen Represented By Gary R Wallace
Defendant(s):
Shaoqiang Chen Represented By Gary R Wallace
Bin Wang Represented By
Michael Jay Berger
Plaintiff(s):
Carolyn Dye Represented By
Felix T Woo James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By James A Dumas Jr
2:00 PM
Christian T Kim
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01075 International Fidelity Insurance Company v. Oh et al
Docket 6
NONE LISTED -
5/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 15, 2021 at 2:00 pm. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Defendant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
Joint Debtor(s):
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
Movant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
2:00 PM
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
Plaintiff(s):
International Fidelity Insurance Represented By Jeffrey D Hook Robert J Berens Ali Salamirad
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01117 Retail Capital Partners, LLC. v. Oh et al
fr. 7-14-20, 11-3-20, 2-2-21, 4-6-21, 5-25-21
Docket 4
NONE LISTED -
Why don't the parties want this matter sent to mediation? Hearing required. 8/11/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for November 3, 2020:
Did the parties participate in a mediation on October 27, 2020. If so, what was the outcome? If not, why not?
If matter did not settle, set discovery cutoff for approxiamtely 120 days and final status conference for approximately same time frame.
11/13/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting continued status conference for February 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. and discovery cutoff for January 31, 2021. Parties should file joint status report not later than January 19, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
Parties report that discovery is complete. Set a deadline for filing any pretrial motions and a date for pretrial conference.
2:00 PM
2/5/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- April 6, 2021 at 2 L/D to file pretrial motions -- February 23, 2021
L/D to have pretrial motions heard -- April 6, 2021
Tentative Ruling for April 6, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar.
5/11/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
5/19/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Defendant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
Joint Debtor(s):
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
Plaintiff(s):
Retail Capital Partners, LLC. Represented By
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Joshua J Herndon
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
11:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
11:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
11:00 AM
Docket 70
NONE LISTED -
The Supreme Court in the Marrama case made clear that it is appropriate for the bankruptcy court to deny a debtor's motion to convert to chapter 13 if the debtor is not eligible to be a debtor in chapter 13, and that a lack of good faith in seeking the conversion makes a debtor ineligible to proceed in chapter 13. (Moreover, how would the debtor have sufficient disposable income to fund a plan? His chapter 7 statement of income shows monthly income of $2,000 to support a household consisting of 11 people.)
From the inception of this case, the debtor has attempted to abuse the system. He lied about whether or not he was married. His attorney tried to have an adversary proceeding dismissed by claiming the underlying bankruptcy case was fraudulently filed by someone other than the debtor, even though he had appeared at his 341(a) meeting and answered questions in such a way as to demonstrate that he had authorized the filing. He lied about having any interest in the Kashlan property. This is not a debtor of whom the court could ever make a good faith finding in connection with a plan confirmation proceeding.
Sustain objection. Deny motion to convert to chapter 13.
Debtor(s):
Eun Ho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang Donald E Iwuchuku
Movant(s):
11:00 AM
Eun Ho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang Simon S Chang Simon S Chang Simon S Chang Simon S Chang Simon S Chang Donald E Iwuchuku Donald E Iwuchuku Donald E Iwuchuku Donald E Iwuchuku Donald E Iwuchuku Donald E Iwuchuku
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
11:00 AM
Docket 356
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/7/21 - Joshua scheer, (949)263-8757
An attorney for a creditor who makes a substantial contribution to a chapter 11 case pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(D) may recover reasonable compensation for professional services rendered as an administrative expense under section 503(b)(4). In re Mortgages Ltd., 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 5093, 2010 WL 6259981, at *7 (9th Cir. BAP Aug. 4, 2010). The principal test of substantial contribution is "the extent of benefit to the estate." In re Cellular 101, Inc., 377 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2004), citing In re Christian Life Ctr., 821 F.2d 1370, 1373 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Pierson & Gaylen v. Creel & Atwood (In re Consol. Bancshares, Inc.), 785 F.2d 1249, 1253 (5th Cir.
1986) (reaffirming that "services which substantially contribute to a case are those which foster and enhance, rather than retard or interrupt the progress o[f] reorganization"). As stated in In re Catalina Spa & R.V. Resort, Ltd., 97
B.R. 13, 21 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1989):
Compensation cannot be freely given to all creditors who take an active role in bankruptcy proceedings, rather, it must be preserved for those rare occasions when the creditor's involvement truly fosters and enhances the administration of the estate. The integrity of § 503(b) can only be maintained by strictly limiting compensation to extra ordinary [sic] creditor actions which lead directly to significant and tangible benefits to the creditors, debtor, [*9] or the estate. While § 503 was enacted to encourage meaningful creditor participation, it should not become a vehicle for reimbursing every creditor who elects to hire an attorney.
11:00 AM
In re PG&E Corp., No. 19-30088-DM, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 371, at *8-9 (Bankr.
N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2021).
None of the subsections of section 503(b) are applicable on the facts of this case. NVSI cannot recover for the costs of negotiating or drafting the sale agreement. This was never within the contemplation of the parties. The debtor did not obtain a sale procedures order authorizing a cost reimbursement to the stalking horse, and NVSI was not the stalking horse. Had the sale closed, or if NSVI had been outbid at a sale, it would not have been able to recover these costs.
The costs that NVSI incurred were not the actual and necessary costs of preserving the estate within the meaning of section 503(b)(1)(A). This fact pattern bears no resemblance to the instances in which fees and expenses have been awarded under this section. And 503(b)(3) does not provide a basis for allowance of the claim here in that it is far from clear that NVSI is a creditor within the meaning of that section and this is not a chapter 9 or chapter 11 case.
Moreover, the Court cannot find on these facts that NVSI provided a substantial contribution to this case. If NVSI had not entered into an agreement to purchase the property by September 25, 2020, the Court would have converted the case to chapter 7 at that time, and the chapter 7 trustee would not have been under the time crunch imposed by the court and NVSI's demands that it close the sale as expeditiously as possible. The court is not ready to conclude that no other alternative would have been available other than a foreclosure by Bobs. And, in any event, that contribution, if there was one, would have been made during the course of the resulting chapter 7 case, not in the chapter 11.
However, the more difficult question is whether there is a basis for the allowance of an expense of administration under the reasoning of Reading Co. v. Brown, 391 U.S. 471 (1968). In that case, the Supreme Court held that damages resulting from the negligence of a receiver acting within the scope of his authority as receiver give rise to actual and necessary costs of a chapter XI arrangement even when there was no actual benefit to the estate.
11:00 AM
In Reading, the negligence of the receiver and/or a workman retained by the receiver resulted in a fire at the debtor's real property that spread to surrounding properties, causing 146 separate fire damage claims.
Reading can be read to support the proposition that it is appropriate to grant administrative status to fees arising out of post-petition transactions or contracts with a debtor in possession or a trustee when wrongful conduct on the part of the debtor in possession or trustee injures third parties. However, if there is no wrongful conduct on the part of the trustee, courts are unlikely to allow an administrative claim. See, e.g., Total Minatome Corp. v. Jack/Wade Drilling, Inc. (In re Jack/Wade Drilling, Inc.), 258 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2001) (although the trustee's conduct in bringing a breach of contract action that he eventually lost caused a third party to incur expense, as the trustee's conduct was not wrongful, no fee award was appropriate).
So how does this reasoning apply here? Did the debtor engage in wrongful conduct during the course of administering the estate that led NVSI to incur fees and expenses? He made optimistic representations to the court and the parties that it was unlikely that there would be significant capital gains liability if the sale were consummated. He failed to perform under the contract, causing the court to convert the case as a means to put a trustee in place promptly so that the contract could be performed. But is there any legal theory under which NVSI would be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and expenses now that the orders approving the contract have been vacated?
Could NVSI establish damages for fraud? Did the debtor knowingly make a false representation about the likelihood that there would be capital gains liability? Is there a contractual theory of recovery for attorneys' fees under the now-unenforceable contract in light of the fact that NVSI did not ultimately become the prevailing party?
In all the cases in which the holding of the Reading case has been used to grant administrative status to a claim asserted against the estate, there was an underlying tort or contract theory that entitled the party asserting the claim to recover. The question was whether or not the claim asserted should be treated as an administrative claim. What is the nonbankruptcy theory of recovery here? In the absence of a workable theory of liability, the Court would not be inclined to extend the holding of Reading to cover this fact
11:00 AM
pattern.
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
NVSI, INC., its successors and/or Represented By
Joshua L Scheer Timothy J Silverman
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
Dismissing Bankruptcy Case Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B)(1), or, in the Alternative,
Granting Relief from the Automatic Stay fr. 3-17-21, 4-21-21
Docket 82
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/7/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Final Ruling from March 17, 2021:
Continue hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with hearing on debtor's disclosure statement. The court will have a better opportunity to examine whether the debtor is acting in good faith and proceeding diligently with a reorganization of its affairs in the context of evaluating its proposed plan and disclosure statement. No new briefing on this motion will be permitted. Additional briefing as to whether there is a reasonable likelihood of reorganization within a reasonable period should come in the context of the hearing on the debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Having reviewed and analyzed the debtor's proposed plan, the court is left with the distinct impression that, with limited exception, this case is a two- party dispute and that the purpose of the bankruptcy filing was for the debtor to obtain a more favorable forum for the litigation of any remaining disputes
11:00 AM
with Canico. Grant motion to dismiss as a bad faith filing.
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Movant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
11:00 AM
Claim No. | Claimant: | |
3.1 | Bruce Cardenas $70,000.00 | |
3.2 | Craig Franze $100,000.00 | |
3.3 | Donald Dean $610,000.00 | |
3.4 | Galam Family Irrevocable Trust $1,860,000.00 | |
3.5 | Jeff Malinovitz $500,000.00 | |
3.6 | Docket | Quality Property Trust $1,500,000.00. 134 |
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/7/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/7/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Set deadline for serving notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
10/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 7, 2020
Bar date -- December 7, 2020
L/D to file updated status report -- December 28, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by December 28, 2020? Hearing required.
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has received status report filed December 29, 2020. Other than submitting to a 2004 examination and serving a notice of bar date, what if any steps toward reorganization have been accomplished since the last status conference and what has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to propose a plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 6, 2021:
11:00 AM
Continue hearing to March 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with hearing on creditor's motion to dismiss or in the alternative relief from stay. Waive requirement that new status report be filed for this continued conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 3, 2021:
Creditor noticed hearing on motion to dismiss or in the alternative for relief from stay for March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m Continue case status conference to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with that hearing. No new status report required. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 3, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Continue case status conference to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to approve debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
11:00 AM
Docket 1
6/8/21 - Debtor's Motion to Dismiss Case filed. Hearing set for 6/30/21 @ 10am.
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/7/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168 6/9/21 - Dustin Nirschl (951)784-1678
12/23/20 -- Court approved order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- January 11, 2021
Bar date -- April 9, 2021
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Has broker had an opportunity to assess value of property? Does broker believe that property can be sold for an amount in excess of the secured claims? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
There is no plan on file. Debtor reports that he will start making monthly payments to secured creditors on March 9, 2021. Has this occurred?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 9, 2021:
11:00 AM
In its May 28, 2021 status report, debtor represents that a motion to dismiss will be filed before the June 9 hearing. As of mid-day on June 7, no such motion has been filed. If, in fact, motion is filed, continue case status conference to date of hearing on motion to dismiss.
Debtor(s):
1369 Londonderry Estate, LLC Represented By Todd L Turoci
11:00 AM
Docket 409
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/3/21 - Randall Mroczynski, (714)431-1026 6/7/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
6/7/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798
6/8/21 - Haleh Naimi, (310)731-2677
Grant motion. Approve agreement. Make finding that Hinklease agreement was a true lease. APPEARANCES WAIVED. MOVANT IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
1) Extend the SARE Deadline Under Section 362(d)(3) or, in the Alternative,
(2) Abandon the Estate's Interest in Certain Real Property fr. 5-18-21, 5-26-21
Docket 182
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/25/21 - Caroline Djang, (929)263-6586 6/2/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000 6/2/21 - Christopher Rivas, (213)457-8000 6/2/21 - Edward Hays, (949)413-7223 6/2/21 - Richard Marshack, (714)624-8000 6/7/21 - Damian CApozzola, (213)448-2709 6/7/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779 6/7/21 - Jason Levin, (302)463-1026
6/7/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
6/7/21 - Evan Smith, (951)894-7332
6/7/21 - Ryan Rupe, (619)573-4488
11:00 AM
6/8/21 - Alan Tippie (213)626-2311
6/8/21 - Mark Haroupian, (213)626-2311
5/14/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing SARE deadline (by consent) to May 28, 2021 and continuing hearing to May 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 18, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
What, if any, progress has the trustee made toward a sale of any of the property? Which of the alternative forms of relief is the trustee seeking at this juncture? Hearing required.
5/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 9, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 26, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 9, 2021:
Tentative ruling from May 26, 2021 remains unchanged.
6/8/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 16, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 9, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
VIN # JTNKARJE5JJ571219 MOVANT: TOYOTA LEASE TRUST
Docket 31
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/14/21 - Kirsten Martinez, (956)532-4294
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) (without prejudice to debtor's rights under section 365(p)).
Debtor(s):
Byron Jimenez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.
Movant(s):
Toyota Lease Trust, as serviced by Represented By
Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# 5XYPG4A37LG625889 MOVANT: KIA MOTORS FINANCE
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/14/21 - Sheryl Ith, (714)431-1029
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Jorge Luis Lemus Represented By Daniel King
Movant(s):
Kia Motors Finance Represented By Sheryl K Ith
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/14/21 - Robert Marticello, (714)445-1023 6/14/21 - Jeffrey Shinbrot, (310)659-5444
Set bar date and deadline for debtor to serve notice of bar date. Would it make sense for the court to order the debtor and the seller to mediation or are negotiations proceeding well on their own? Hearing required.
4/26/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- April 28, 2021
Bar date -- July 1, 2021
L/D to file updated status report -- June 4, 2021
Cont'd status conference -- June 15, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for June 15, 2021:
Debtor has filed plan and disclosure statement, but has not set them for hearing. Set date and time for hearing on disclosure statement and deadline for filing oppositions. (Parties are planning to attend mediation in mid-July.) Continue status conference to date of hearing on disclosure statement.
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
BV Glendora LLC, a Colorado Represented By
10:00 AM
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01183 DYE v. Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. et al
fr. 8-27-19, 11-19-19, 12-17-19, 2-11-20; 6-30-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20, 2-23-21,
4-27-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/14/21 - Steve Berman, (813)227-2332
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
If defendants have filed motion to dismiss, continue status conference to date of hearing on motion as a holding date. If defendants have filed answer to complaint, both parties have indicated a willingness to attend mediation.
Discuss with parties the timing of mediation.
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2019:
Parties report that they have scheduled a mediation for December 2, 2019 with Meredith Jury. Continue status conference to December 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (Parties need not file a new status report prior to that status conference.) APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2019:
2:00 PM
Did the parties participate in a mediation before Meredith Jury? If so, was a settlement reached? Hearing required.
12/16/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 11, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 17, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for February 11, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for late July, 2020. Set final status conference for shortly before discovery cutoff.
4/22/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 30, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- June 16, 2020 Discovery cutoff -- July 31, 2020
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2020:
Continue status conference to August 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion for summary judgment. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2020.
6/30/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates: Discovery cutoff -- October 31, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2 L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to exchange expert witness reports/designate experts -- November 16, 2020
L/D to complete expert discovery -- December 1, 2020
8/12/20 -- At hearing held this datre, Court continued status conference and hearing on summary judgment motion to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
2:00 PM
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 201.
10/19/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Pretrial conference -- February 23, 2021 @ 2 L/D to copmlete discovery -- November 30, 2020
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- December 31, 2020 L/D to complete expert discovery -- January 31, 2021
L/D to lodge pretrial order -- Feburary 9, 2021 L/D to file pretrial motions -- December 31, 2020
11/18/20 -- Court signed stipulated order with following dates:
L/D to complete depositions of Burgee, Abramoff and Lanius extended to January 15, 2021;
L/D to file pretrial motions extended to January 31, 2021;
L/D for parties to designate experts and exchange expert witness reports extended to February 15, 2021; and
L/D for parties to complete expert witness discovery extended to March 12, 2021.
1/15/21-- Court approved stipulation continuing following dates:
L/D to complete depositions of Burgee and Lanius extended to January 29, 2021;
L/D to file pretrial motions extended to March 1, 2021;
L/D for parties to designate experts and exchange expert witness reports extended to March 15, 2021; and
L/D to complete expert witness discovery extended to April 9, 2021.
In light of the foregoing, court also continued pretrial conference to April 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties shall lodge joint pretrial order not later than April 13, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
2/17/21-- Court approved stipulation continuing following dates: L/D to file pretrial motions extended to April 19, 2021;
2:00 PM
L/D for parties to designate experts and exchange expert witness reports extended to April 30, 2021; and
L/D to complete expert witness discovery extended to May 24, 2021.
In light of the foregoing, court also continued pretrial conference to June 15, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties shall lodge joint pretrial order not later than June 1, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
3/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to August 10, 2021. L/D to file pretrial motions continued to June 1, 2021. L/D to designate experts and exchange experts reports continued to June 14, 2021. L/D to complete expert discovery continued to July 1, 2021. Parties shall lodge joint pretrial order not less than 14 days before continued pretrial conference date.
OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 15, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
Defendant(s):
Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
John Burgee Represented By
Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Robert Abramoff Represented By Amy L Goldman
2:00 PM
Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By Steven M Berman Stella A Havkin
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01184 DYE v. de Gallegos et al
Christian de Gallegos
fr. 8-27-19, 11-19-19, 12-17-19, 2-11-20, 6-30-20, 9-15-20, 10-20-20, 2-23-21,
4-27-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Both parties have indicated a willingness to attend mediation. Discuss with parties the timing of mediation.
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2019:
Parties report that they have scheduled a mediation for December 9, 2019 with Meredith Jury. Continue status conference to December 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (Parties need not file a new status report prior to that status conference.) APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2019:
Did the parties participate in a mediation before Meredith Jury? If so, was a settlement reached? Hearing required.
12/13/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 11,
2:00 PM
2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 17, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for February 11, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for early June, 2020. Set final status conference for shortly before discovery cutoff.
4/22/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 30, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- June 16, 2020 Discovery cutoff -- July 31, 2020
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for late November, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Set final status conference for approximately 90 to 120 days.
6/30/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates: Discovery cutoff -- October 31, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2 L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to exchange expert witness reports/designate experts -- November 16, 2020
L/D to complete expert discovery -- December 1, 2020
8/28/20 -- Court approved compromise between trustee and defendant Max Charles Moore III resolving all claims against him.
Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Continue status conference to October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with Trustee's motion for partial summary adjudication. Parties need not file new status report for that conference. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
Discuss with parties anticipated dates for filing revised motion for partial summary adjudication. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
There is a court form for an attachment to the status report for additional parties. In the future, trustee should file a single, collective status report using the main form and the attachment for additional defendants.
Court notes that Jeffrey Elliott has demanded a jury trial. Assuming there is a right to a jury trial that has not been waived, this court will nevertheless handle all pretrial proceedings up through and including pretrial conference before the reference is withdrawn and the matter is returned to the district court for trial. Is there a dispute as to whether Mr. Elliott has a right to a jury trial?
Discuss with parties the timing of motion for summary judgment/partial summary adjudication and pretrial conference. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions.
4/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation modifying its prior scheduling order in the following respects:
L/D to complete discovery -- September 1, 2021
L/D to have pretrial motions heard -- October 1, 2021
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- October 31, 2021 L/D to complete expert witness discovery -- November 31, 2021.
Status conference continued to June 15, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 15, 2021:
Continue status conference to date closer to discovery cutoff -- August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than August 17, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 15, 2021.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
Defendant(s):
Christian de Gallegos Represented By Paul A Beck
Jeffrey Norman Elliott Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Max Charles Moore II Represented By Jonathan M. Saffer
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By Steven M Berman
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01170 Farwell v. Herzstock
J. Herzstock
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20, 2-23-21, 3-30-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Explain to defendant importance of complying with court's local rules concerning the conduct of adversary proceeding.
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Where is status report that should have been filed by November 19, 2019?
Final Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by February 25, 2020. Parties are to complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020 and should lodge an order appointing mediators by December 24, 2019. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge
2:00 PM
scheduling order as instructed at prior status conference. Impose additional sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and defendant in pro per for failing to lodge an order appointing mediators and complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020, as directed by the Court. Impose additional sanctions of
$150 on defendant in pro per for failing to participate in preparation of joint status report. Lack of cooperation from defendant does not excuse plaintiff from deadlines established by the Court. These are joint obligations.
Set discovery cutoff for late May, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Order parties AGAIN to conduct mediation. If defendant does not cooperate in selection of mediators, plaintiff should lodge unilateral order appointing mediators. If parties do not complete mediation by new deadline, court will impose additional monetary sanctions of not less than $500. Court does not consider its deadlines to be optional.
3/11/20 -- Court issued scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 16, 2020 at 2:00 pm
Discovery cutoff -- May 31, 2020
L/D to file pretrial motions -- June 15, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- March 23, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- June 16, 2020
Court imposed sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order after last status conference.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on defendant for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Impose additional $150 in sanctions on defendant for failing to cooperate in the scheduling of mediation. The deadline for filing pretrial motions was June 15, 2020. If defendant has not responded to discovery requests, why hasn't plaintiff filed motion to compel discovery? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report. Court will impose monetary sanctions at that time if parties fail to file joint status report in a timely manner or if mediation has not been completed.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Parties have again failed to file joint status report in a timely manner. Impose monetary sanctions of $150 each on counsel for the parties for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Have the parties completed a day of mediation? If not, impose additional sanctions of $500 each on counsel for the parties and issue OSC why action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
10/5/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
Final Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff of December 30, 2020. Pretrial motions should be filed by February 2, 2021. Parties must lodge proposed pretrial order by February 9, 2021. Schedule pretrial conference for February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order setting forth these dates.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Plaintiff has failed to lodge scheduling order as directed. As a result, other deadlines were missed. Where is the joint pretrial order that should have been lodged by February 9, 2021? Impose monetary sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and renew OSC re dismissal for failure to prosecute. Set hearing on OSC for same date and time as continued pretrial conference.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to lodge joint proposed pretrial order not later than March 16, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
2:00 PM
Pretrial order should have been lodged, not filed. Court has many questions and concerns with regard to the form of the pretrial order that will be discussed with the parties at the time of the pretrial conference.
Tentative Ruling for June 15, 2021:
Court still has serious problems with the form of the pretrial order that will be discussed at the time of the pretrial conference.
Debtor(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Represented By
J.D. Cuzzolina
Defendant(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Alec Farwell Represented By
Sarah R Wolk Zachary Levine
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01171 Chasse v. Herzstock
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20, 2-23-21, 3-30-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Explain to defendant importance of complying with court's local rules concerning the conduct of adversary proceeding.
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Where is status report that should have been filed by November 19, 2019?
Final Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by February 25, 2020. Parties are to complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020 and should lodge an order appointing mediators by December 24, 2019. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge
2:00 PM
scheduling order as instructed at prior status conference. Impose additional sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and defendant in pro per for failing to lodge an order appointing mediators and complete a day of mediation by March 10, 2020, as directed by the Court. Impose additional sanctions of
$150 on defendant in pro per for failing to participate in preparation of joint status report. Lack of cooperation from defendant does not excuse plaintiff from deadlines established by the Court. These are joint obligations.
Set discovery cutoff for late May, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Order parties AGAIN to conduct mediation. If defendant does not cooperate in selection of mediators, plaintiff should lodge unilateral order appointing mediators. If parties do not complete mediation by new deadline, court will impose additional monetary sanctions of not less than $500. Court does not consider its deadlines to be optional.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on defendant for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Impose additional $500 in sanctions on defendant for failing to cooperate in the scheduling of mediation. The deadline for filing pretrial motions was June 15, 2020. If defendant has not responded to discovery requests, why hasn't plaintiff filed motion to compel discovery? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report. Court will impose monetary sanctions at that time if parties fail to file joint status report in a timely manner or if mediation has not been completed.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Parties have again failed to file joint status report in a timely manner. Impose monetary sanctions of $150 each on counsel for the parties for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint status report. Have the parties completed a day of mediation? If not, impose additional sanctions of $500 each on counsel for the parties and issue OSC why action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
2:00 PM
10/5/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
Final Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff of December 30, 2020. Pretrial motions should be filed by February 2, 2021. Parties must lodge proposed pretrial order by February 9, 2021. Schedule pretrial conference for February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order setting forth these dates.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Plaintiff has failed to lodge scheduling order as directed. As a result, other deadlines were missed. Where is the joint pretrial order that should have been lodged by February 9, 2021? Impose monetary sanctions of $250 on counsel for plaintiff and renew OSC re dismissal for failure to prosecute. Set hearing on OSC for same date and time as continued pretrial conference.
2/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to lodge joint proposed pretrial order not later than March 16, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Pretrial order should have been lodged, not filed. Court has many questions and concerns with regard to the form of the pretrial order that will be discussed with the parties at the time of the pretrial conference.
Tentative Ruling for June 15, 2021:
Court still has serious problems with the form of the pretrial order that will be discussed at the time of the pretrial conference.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Represented By
J.D. Cuzzolina
Defendant(s):
Edward J. Herzstock Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Kyle Chasse Represented By
Sarah R Wolk Zachary Levine
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01669 Delco Products, LLC v. Marks
fr. 1-26-21, 4-6-21
Docket 2
1/25/21 - Amended Complaint filed.
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/14/21 - Fredric Greenblatt, (818)992-1188
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on motion to dismiss.
4/9/21 -- Court signed order denying motion to dismiss and setting deadline of April 27, 2021 for defendant to file and serve an answer to complaint.
Tentative Ruling for June 15, 2021:
Set discovery cutoff for late October, 2021. Order parties to meet and confer and exchange the information required by FRBP 7026. Continue status conference approximately 90 days.
Debtor(s):
Richard Marks Represented By Christopher J Langley
Defendant(s):
Richard Marks Pro Se
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Delco Products, LLC Represented By Fredric J Greenblatt Glenn M Solomon
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01075 International Fidelity Insurance Company v. Oh et al
Docket 6
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/8/21 - Rachel Sposato, (310)316-0500
5/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 15, 2021 at 2:00 pm. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 15, 2021:
Grant motion to dismiss. Complaint was not filed in a timely manner. The date first set for the 341(a) meeting was March 10, 2020. A 341(a) meeting was in fact conducted on that date. The meeting was never reset. It was continued at that meeting to April 6, 2020 and was continued on several occasions thereafter; however, continuances of a 341(a) meeting have never extended the deadline to file 523 and 727 actions.
The Court's March 23, 2020 General Order 20-03 extended various deadlines in light of the pandemic. Although this bankruptcy case falls within the definition on page 1 of the order of "continued cases" in that the continued 341(a) meeting was scheduled for April 6, 2020 and this date was within the time frame set forth in the order (March 17, 2020 through April 10, 2020), the actual operative language granting an extension in paragraphs 4 and 5 does not apply due to its use of the defined term "reset cases" in paragraph 1, on page 2, line 12 of the order.
2:00 PM
According to paragraph 1 of the order, a "reset date" as defined in the order is "the newly established date to commence the meeting of creditors." [Emphasis added.] In this context, the use of the verb, "commence," is significant in that the deadline for filing 523 and 727 actions has always run from the date first set for the commencement of the 341(a) meeting, not from the date set for a continued session of that meeting. Applying this definition to the extension granted in paragraphs 4 and 5, the deadline to file 523 and 727 actions begins to run on the reset date for the meeting of creditors. In this bankruptcy case, there never was any reset date. The meeting commenced on the date it was originally scheduled to commence (March 10, 2020 -- before the shutdown) and was thereafter merely continued.
The court has no problem with the idea that an extension was requested by the US Trustee instead of by the creditor or with the timing of the US Trustee's motion, in that it was brought well before the expiration of the deadline for filing 523 and 727 actions in this bankruptcy case (May 11, 2020), but the extension that the US Trustee obtained does not by its terms apply in this case.
The fact that there has been a continuance of a 341(a) meeting has never triggered an automatic extension of the deadline for filing a 523 or a 727 action and there is no reason to assume, contrary to the plain language of the general order, that a continuance of the meeting would result in an extension here either. If, on the other hand, the original meeting had never been held, it would be appropriate to treat the reset date for the meeting to commence as the date from which the 60-day deadline should begin to run. Therefore, the general order goes on to provide that, if the meeting is subsequently reset by the US Trustee, the 60-day period would begin to run on the reset date. The general order never uses the word, "continued" in connection with these extensions. It only uses the word, "reset," which has a distinct meeting in this context. In this court's view, the General Order never gave rise to rolling extensions of the deadline for filing these actions based on multiple continuances of the 341(a) meeting. The most natural reading of the General Order is that there will still be a strict 60-day deadline for the bringing of these actions, but that this period will begin to run on whatever date the US Trustee actually commences the 341(a) meeting and not on the date that originally appeared in the (prepandemic) notices of the 341(a) meetings that the court
2:00 PM
issued.
(It is worthy of note that the pandemic never precluded the plaintiff from commencing an adversary proceeding in a timely manner. The court never stopped accepting filings, either electronically or in hard copy, at any point during the pandemic.)
This may be a harsh result for a party who apparently misunderstood/misread the Court's general order, but the caselaw in this area has always strictly construed the applicable deadlines and put the burden on the creditor to move for an extension of time prior to the expiration of the original period.
Only in the most extreme of circumstances where creditors have been misled by a mistake on the court's part, such as the service of a notice that set forth a later date, have courts permitted creditors to commence a 523 or 727 action belatedly. The creditor may have been confused, but even excusable neglect would not give the court authority to retroactively extend the deadline for the filing of these actions.
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Defendant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
Joint Debtor(s):
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
2:00 PM
Movant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
Plaintiff(s):
International Fidelity Insurance Represented By Jeffrey D Hook Robert J Berens Ali Salamirad
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
$100 was due on 4/19/21;
$100 is due by 5/17/21;
$100 is due by 6/17/21 fr. 5-26-21
Docket 12
6/7/21 - Filing fee paid in full.
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
Debtor paid first installment, but has not paid installments due April 19 or May 17, 2021. Another installment is due June 17, 2021.
Dismiss case.
Final Ruling for May 26, 2021:
Debtor appeared and said he would pay all payments, including final installment, prior to continued hearing. Court continued hearing to June 16, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give debtor a further opportunity to cure his default
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Debtor has now paid in full. Vacate OSC. No appearance required. Court will prepare order.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Aaron Anthony Munoz Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
$106 was due on 5/13/21;
$106 was due on 6/14/21
$106 will be due on 7/13/21
Docket 18
NONE LISTED -
Debtor has not paid either $106 due May 13, 2021 or $106 due June 14, 2021. Dismiss case.
Debtor(s):
Luis Viramontes Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 22
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/16/21 - Giovanni Orantes, (213)389-4362
Ruling on Debtor's Evidentiary Objections
Court will not rule on evidentiary objections to statements not authenticated by the declarations -- there is no evidence to which to object. Debtor may simply point out that there is no evidentiary support for these statements.
Nosrati Declaration
Sustain (hearsay).
Sustain (lack of foundation).
Sustain (best evidence rule).
Sustain (best evidence rule).
Overrule.
Sustain. This is argument, not evidence.
Sustain. This is argument, not evidence.
Donay Declaration
Overrule.
Overrule as to first sentence. Sustain as to second (best evidence rule; hearsay).
Court cannot locate the testimony referenced in this objection in the declaration.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
10:00 AM
Overrule as to first sentence. Sustain as to second sentence (lack of foundation) (passive voice creates problem here).
(identified as 11). Sustain (hearsay).
(identified as 12). Overrule.
Murcia Declaration
Overrule.
Overrule.
Grant movant's request for judicial notice as to all documents other than Exhibit 10.
Tentative Ruling on the Merits
Deny motion to dismiss. This is a chapter 7 bankruptcy by two debtors, one whose business closed due to the pandemic and the other who lost his job at the same time. There were 2 prior bankruptcy filings by the husband before the two were married, but one was more than 10 years ago and the other was more than 20 years ago. There is a dispute between the parties as to who owned the air conditioning unit and who removed it. Debtor claims it was her property; movant claims it belonged to the lessor. Movant claims debtor committed perjury -- by submitting a declaration in response to a motion for relief from stay in which she stated that she negotiated the lease through a Spanish language interpreter. The lessor claims that she speaks English proficiently. None of these facts and circumstances, taken either separately or together, are sufficient to amount to bad faith or other cause to dismiss this bankruptcy case under either 707(a)
or (b). If it is appropriate and the applicable time limits have not passed, movant may commence an action under section 523 or 727 to avoid the discharge of its debts, but dismissal of the case appears unwarranted.
Debtor(s):
Cesar Guillermo Garcia Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Joint Debtor(s):
Yara Adilia Garcia-Espinoza Represented By
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Giovanni Orantes
Six Plus, LLC. Represented By Sophie G Nosrati
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#4.00 Trustee's Motion for Order Authorizing Sale of Real Property of the Estate [1370 Kashlan Road, La Habra Heights, California 90631-8416] Free and Clear of Liens and Interests, Subject to Higher and Better Offers, and Approving Overbidding Procedures
Docket 81
NONE LISTED -
Grant request for judicial notice. Grant motion. Approve sale to highest bidder. Grant request for 363(m) finding, but deny request that 14-day stay be waived.
Debtor(s):
Eun Ho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang Donald E Iwuchuku
Movant(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
10:00 AM
Approving sale of real property, subject to overbid
Authorizing sale free and clear of liens and interests 3). Authorizing release of funds from escrow
4) Approving payment of real estate commissions
Authorizing 100% of the sale proceeds to be paid to the Bankruptcy Estate
Authorizing Trustee to reimburse Real Estate Broker, Jan Neiman, for funds advanced for removal of debris and notification of permits
7) Approving payments of property insurance to Trustee Resource Group; Property located at: 1257 11th Street, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Docket 133
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/3/21 - Edward Lin, (310)729-5305
6/3/21 - Lily Lin, (714)553-8241
6/7/21 - Rick Wilkinson, (310)663-9064 6/14/21 - Michelle Marchisott, (323)724-3117
6/14/21 - Ross Cardell & Alison Cardell, (310)422-2947 6/15/21 - Jan Neiman, (818)516-3779
10:00 AM
6/15/21 - Brian Lane, (424)202-9949
6/16/21 - Toan Chung, (323)724-3117
Overbid increment should be at least $10,000 for a sale in this price range. Other than that, grant motion. Approve sale to highest bidder. Make 363(m) finding and waive 14-day stay.
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Joint Debtor(s):
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
Movant(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
10:00 AM
Docket 1855
Zoomgov Appearance by:
6/2/21 - Sander Esserman, (214)969-4900 6/9/21 - Eve Karasik, (310)229-1234 6/9/21 - Jack Luikart 415-407-0488
6/9/21 - Sandra Hernandez, 415-531-1114 6/9/21 - Steven Bray, 775-200-4889
6/9/21 - Laura Paul, 775-762-3351 6/9/21 - Kim Dornberger 775-745-7867;
6/9/21 - Sander Esserman, 214-354-9945
6/9/21 - Steve Sacks, 416-342-2029 6/9/21 - Jeanine Donohue, 415-515-2807
Grant motion. Approve annual report and accounting.
Debtor(s):
Jt Thorpe Inc Represented By
Brian L Davidoff
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Michael H Ahrens Charles J Malaret
J.T. THORPE SETTLEMENT Represented By
John P Sande - SUSPENDED - Richard W Esterkin
Gabriel I Glazer Danielle A Pham Eve H Karasik Daniel J Bussel
10:00 AM
fr. 4-10-02, 7-2-02, 9-4-02, 9-25-02, 10-23-02, 11-13-02, 12-11-02, 4-9-03,
10-8-03,
2-4-04, 2-11-04, 6-09-04, 9-29-04, 11-17-04, 12-1-04, 12-22-04, 1-26-05,
2-15-05,
7-14-05, 7-15-05, 7-29-05, 10-26-05, 11-22-05, 12-5-05, 6-20-06, 10-25-06,
10-17-07, 6-4-08, 6-3-09, 6-9-09, 6-22-10, 6-30-10, 6-29-11, 6-27-12, 6-26-13,
6-4-14, 6-3-15, 6-8-16, 6-7-17, 6-13-18, 6-12-19, 6-3-20, 6-3-21
Docket 21
Zoomgov Appearance by:
6/2/21 - Sander Esserman, (214)969-4900 6/9/21 - Eve Karasik, (310)229-1234 6/9/21 - Jack Luikart 415-407-0488
6/9/21 - Sandra Hernandez, 415-531-1114 6/9/21 - Steven Bray, 775-200-4889
6/9/21 - Laura Paul, 775-762-3351 6/9/21 - Kim Dornberger 775-745-7867;
6/9/21 - Sander Esserman, 214-354-9945 6/9/21 - Steve Sacks, 416-342-2029 6/9/21 - Jeanine Donohue, 415-515-2807
10:00 AM
4/29/21 -- At request of parties, court continued this hearing to June 16, 2021 at 10:00
a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 2, 2021.
Continue this status conference to a date that can serve as date of hearing on next annual report and accounting.
Debtor(s):
Jt Thorpe Inc Represented By
Brian L Davidoff Michael H Ahrens Charles J Malaret
10:00 AM
Docket 168
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/9/21 - Eve Karasik, (310)229-1234 6/9/21 - Jack Luikart 415-407-0488
6/9/21 - Sandra Hernandez, 415-531-1114 6/9/21 - Steven Bray, 775-200-4889
6/9/21 - Laura Paul, 775-762-3351 6/9/21 - Kim Dornberger 775-745-7867;
6/9/21 - Sander Esserman, 214-354-9945 6/9/21 - Steve Sacks, 416-342-2029
6/9/21 - Jeanine Donohue, 415-515-2807
Grant motion. Approve annual report and accounting.
Debtor(s):
Pacific Insulation Company Represented By John A Lapinski
Leslie R Horowitz
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Thorpe Insulation Company Represented By
John P Sande - SUSPENDED - Gabriel I Glazer
Danielle A Pham Michael J Mandelbrot Eve H Karasik
10:00 AM
fr. 6-4-14, 6-3-15, 6-8-16, 6-7-17, 6-13-18, 6-12-19, 6-3-20, 6-3-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/9/21 - Eve Karasik, (310)229-1234 6/9/21 - Jack Luikart 415-407-0488
6/9/21 - Sandra Hernandez, 415-531-1114 6/9/21 - Steven Bray, 775-200-4889
6/9/21 - Laura Paul, 775-762-3351 6/9/21 - Kim Dornberger 775-745-7867;
6/9/21 - Sander Esserman, 214-354-9945 6/9/21 - Steve Sacks, 416-342-2029
6/9/21 - Jeanine Donohue, 415-515-2807
4/29/21 -- At request of parties, court continued this hearing to June 16, 2021 at 10:00
a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 2, 2021.
Continue status conference to a date that can serve as date of hearing on next annual report and accounting.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Pacific Insulation Company Represented By John A Lapinski
Leslie R Horowitz
10:00 AM
Dismissing Bankruptcy Case Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B)(1), or, in the Alternative,
Granting Relief from the Automatic Stay fr. 3-17-21, 4-21-21, 6-9-21
Docket 82
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/14/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 6/15/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802
Final Ruling from March 17, 2021:
Continue hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with hearing on debtor's disclosure statement. The court will have a better opportunity to examine whether the debtor is acting in good faith and proceeding diligently with a reorganization of its affairs in the context of evaluating its proposed plan and disclosure statement. No new briefing on this motion will be permitted. Additional briefing as to whether there is a reasonable likelihood of reorganization within a reasonable period should come in the context of the hearing on the debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Having reviewed and analyzed the debtor's proposed plan, the court is left with the distinct impression that, with limited exception, this case is a two- party dispute and that the purpose of the bankruptcy filing was for the debtor
10:00 AM
to obtain a more favorable forum for the litigation of any remaining disputes with Canico. Grant motion to dismiss as a bad faith filing.
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Parties reported that a settlement has been reached. What is the nature of the agreement? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Movant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
10:00 AM
Claim No. | Claimant: | |
3.1 | Bruce Cardenas $70,000.00 | |
3.2 | Craig Franze $100,000.00 | |
3.3 | Donald Dean $610,000.00 | |
3.4 | Galam Family Irrevocable Trust $1,860,000.00 | |
3.5 | Jeff Malinovitz $500,000.00 | |
3.6 | Quality Property Trust $1,500,000.00. | |
FR. 6-9-21 | Docket | 134 |
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/14/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 6/15/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
This is a chapter 11 case. The debtor in possession has a duty to examine and challenge claims that are unenforceable. Here, instead, the debtor is
10:00 AM
defending the claims. Continue hearing to give creditors a further opportunity to defend their claims. Notice served upon them should advise that, if they do not choose to do so, the objections will be sustained. Court notes that Canico's statute of limitations argument does not apply to claims evidenced by written promissory notes -- Franze, Cardenas and Malinovitz (if a written promissory note can be located for Malinovitz).
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/14/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 6/15/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802
Set deadline for serving notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
10/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 7, 2020
Bar date -- December 7, 2020
L/D to file updated status report -- December 28, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by December 28, 2020? Hearing required.
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has received status report filed December 29, 2020. Other than submitting to a 2004 examination and serving a notice of bar date, what if any steps toward reorganization have been accomplished since the last status conference and what has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to propose a plan? Hearing required.
10:00 AM
Final Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with hearing on creditor's motion to dismiss or in the alternative relief from stay. Waive requirement that new status report be filed for this continued conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 3, 2021:
Creditor noticed hearing on motion to dismiss or in the alternative for relief from stay for March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m Continue case status conference to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with that hearing. No new status report required. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 3, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Continue case status conference to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to approve debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
1) Extend the SARE Deadline Under Section 362(d)(3) or, in the Alternative,
(2) Abandon the Estate's Interest in Certain Real Property fr. 5-18-21, 5-26-21, 6-9-21
Docket 182
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/9/21 - Caroline Djang, (949)263-6586 6/9/21 - Michelle Dreyer, (302)463-1026 6/14/21 - Damian Capozzola, (213)448-2709 6/14/21 - Timothy Lacquer, (714)925-1779 6/15/21 - Evan Smith, (951)894-7332
6/15/21 - K. Todd Curry, (619)238-0004
6/15/21 - Alan Tippie, (213)626-2311 6/15/21 - Mark Haroupian, (213)626-2311 6/15/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000 6/16/21 - Christopher Rivas, (213)457-8000
5/14/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing SARE deadline (by consent)
10:00 AM
to May 28, 2021 and continuing hearing to May 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 18, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
What, if any, progress has the trustee made toward a sale of any of the property? Which of the alternative forms of relief is the trustee seeking at this juncture? Hearing required.
5/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 9, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 26, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 9, 2021:
Tentative ruling from May 26, 2021 remains unchanged.
6/8/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 16, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Tentative ruling from May 26, 2021 remains unchanged.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
11:00 AM
fr. 8-8-18, 9-11-18, 10-9-18, 10-4-18, 2-13-19, 2-27-19, 4-30-19, 5-29-19,
8-15-19, 3-11-20, 6-17-20, 9-16-20, 12-16-20, 3-17-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/7/21 - Kathleen Hateley, (949)677-6626
Tentative Ruling for January 15, 2020:
According to reorganized debtor's post-confirmation status report, the reorganized debtor is currently delinquent on a variety of payments due under its confirmed plan. The status report represents that these arrearages will have been cured by the date of the status conference. Has this occurred? Is the reorganized debtor now current on its plan payments? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 15, 2020:
Debtor has not cured arrearages as of January 14, 2020, but thinks it will be able to do so by the end of January and that it will be able to make February payments. Continue status conference to March 11, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.
Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than February 28, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 11, 2020:
Reorganized debtor filed status report belatedly on March 5, 2020. Debtor failed to make the February payments and is having checks returned from two secured creditors. Status report represents that reorganized debtor will cure
11:00 AM
arrearages before the hearing. Has this occurred? What is the debtor doing about the creditors' whose checks are being returned?
Hearing required.
6/3/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference to September 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than September 4, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 17, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for September 16, 2020:
At request of reorganized debtor, continue post-confirmation status conference to December 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report accompanied by declaration not later than December 4, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 16, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than March 5, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 16, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by June 4, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Discuss with reorganized debtor, who has been in default of its plan obligations for months and is no longer in business, whether it makes more sense to convert the case to chapter 7 now rather than to permit the debtor to remain in chapter 7. Hearing required. (Court needs to know more about what debtor is hoping to accomplish by remaining in chapter 11.)
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
DDC Group, Inc. Represented By Kathleen Hateley
11:00 AM
fr. 11-7-18, 1-10-19, 4-10-19, 7-17-19. 10-16-19, 1-15-20, 4-29-20, 10-28-20,
12-9-20, 3-17-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling for January 10, 2019:
Discuss with trustee why he believes that keeping this case in chapter 11 makes more sense than converting the case to chapter 7. When does trustee think he will have all of the appropriate insurance coverages in place? Continue status conference for approximately 90 days.
Final Ruling for January 10, 2019:
Continue hearing to April 10, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file updated status report by April 1, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for April 10, 2019:
Court has reviewed the trustee's updated status report. Set continued status conference for July 17, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file updated status report by July 8, 2019. Waive appearances on April 10, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for July 17, 2019:
Has the sale of the Alondra property now closed? If not, what is the status of that sale?
What is the status of the proposed sale of the Anderson property? Has the
11:00 AM
financing contingency period passed?
Continue status conference approximately 90 days. Should the court set bar date and deadline for serving/publishing notice of bar date?
Tentative Ruling for October 16, 2019:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue case status conference to January 15, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file and serve updated status report not later than January 3, 2020. Appearances waived on October 16, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for January 15, 2020:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue case status conference to April 29, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file and serve updated status report not later than April 17, 2020. Appearances waived on January 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 29, 2020:
Court has reviewed trustee's status report. Continue case status conference to October 28, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Trustee should file and serve updated status report not later than October 16, 2020. Appearances waived on April 29, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 28, 2020:
Are there any steps that could be taken in this court to assist in the resolution of the SBK issues? Could the trustee adjudicate SBK's claim to a constructive trust over/in assets of the estate? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
If court grants motion on calendar as number 108, take status conference off calendar as case will be dismissed (or continue for approximately 60 to 90 days to give trustee an opportunity to effectuate the transactions
11:00 AM
contemplated by the motion).
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Continue case status conference to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give trustee an opportunity to pay amounts allowed in response to fee application and amounts due LA County and deposit remaining funds with Utah court.
Once that has occcured, trustee should file declaration attesting to the fact that all required payments have been made and should lodge an order dismissing case as set forth in more detail in this Court's December 11, 2020 order granting motion for conditional dismissal of case. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
5/7/21 -- Court approved order dismissing case. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Regdalin Properties, LLC Represented By Henrik Mosesi
Trustee(s):
R. Todd Neilson (TR) Represented By Peter J Mastan
Ashleigh A Danker
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/14/21 - Louis Esbin, (661)254-5050
Tentative Ruling for December 4, 2019:
Debtor owns 80 percent of the Real Property as a tenant in common with whom? Do the managing member's parents own the other 20 percent as joint tenants? And the debtor itself is 80 percent owned by George Gabriel and 20 percent owned by his father? When was the deed of trust held by Tymeout recorded in the first place? What were the proceeds of the loan used for?
Set bar date and deadline for serving notice of bar date.
12/11/19 -- Court approved order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- 12/13/19
Bar date -- 1/31/20
Cont'd case status conference -- 03/04/20 at 11:00 a.m. L/D to file updated case status report -- 02/21/20.
Tentative Ruling for March 4, 2020:
Status report was filed late (on February 27, 2020). Discuss with debtor pending litigation in state court concerning the parties' respective priorities. Set deadline for debtor to commence litigation in this court to resolve these issues. Explore whether ordering the parties to mediation would be useful.
11:00 AM
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 1, 2020:
What is currently happening at the property? Who is collecting rents? Are tenants paying rent? Did debtor seek and obtain any stays pending appeal? Hearing required.
NOTE: There are a number of inaccurate or misleading statements in the case status report. For example, there is no mention made of the prior in rem order for relief.
Instead, the report makes it appear that the first time Tymeout obtained relief from stay was in the April 28, 2020 order, which was not the case. And the statement that the debtor, "of course" obtained a stay of the foreclosure proceedings by filing this case is inconsistent with the court's prior rulings in this matter.
Tentative Ruling for October 7, 2020:
Discuss with the parties whether to grant the debtor's request that the debtor and Tymeout be ordered to mediation. Hearing required.
10/16/20 -- Court approved order directing parties to complete a day of mediation not later than January 5, 2021 and setting the following additional dates:
Cont'd case status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 L/D to file updated case status report -- December 27, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- October 26, 2020. (If Tymeout fails to cooperate in selection of mediator, debtor may file declaration to this effect and lodge unilateral order appointing mediators of its choosing. If Tymeout fails to participate in mediation, debtor should file declaration to this effect and court will issue an order to show cause why Tymeout should not be held in contempt.)
11/13/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Court has not approved a settlement agreement, so it is not in a position to issue an order to show cause why someone should, or should not, be held in breach of that
11:00 AM
agreement. The debtor is a party to the proposed agreement. Does it intend to seek court approval of the agreement? If not, why not? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2021:
At debtor's request, continue case status conference to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give escrow an opportunity to close and debtor an opportunity to request dismissal of this case. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 7, 2021.
(NOTE: Court signed order granting motion for approval of global compromise on April 2, 2021.)
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Case needs to be dismissed, but not until escrow has closed. At debtor's request, continue status conference to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give escrow an opportunity to close. Debtor should file updated status report not later than August 6, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 16, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Grandview Hills LLC Represented By Louis J Esbin
11:00 AM
fr. 12-17-20, 2-10-21, 3-17-21, 4-21-21
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/7/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798
6/7/21 - Michael D'Alba, (310)277-0077 6/7/21 - Danya Elbendary (Listen Only) 6/9/21 - Richard Solomon, (858)793-8516 6/14/21 - Elan Levey, (213)894-3997
6/14/21 - Jess Bressi, (949)241-8967
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Why does the Bank of the West payroll account need to remain open?
Debtor needs to stop payment on any outstanding checks issued on accounts that remain open. To the extent that the Court authorizes the payment of prepetition amounts, new checks should be issued.
Merchant accounts should remain open for deposits only. Only disbursements the debtor should make from these accounts is to sweep amounts on deposit (net of any required reserves) to a DIP account.
There is a difference between the debtors' depositing all of their funds into, and paying all of their expenses from, a single concentration account and
11:00 AM
pooling funds in such a way as to permit receipts generated by one debtor to be used to pay expenses attributable to a different debtor. Absent substantive consolidation or an order approving a financing motion as between two or more debtor entities, one debtor's expenses should not be paid from revenues generated by a different debtor.
Subject to the foregoing, provided debtor supplies adequate proof of service, grant motion.
Final Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Court granted motion on interim basis through February 12, 2021. Final hearing set for February 10, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. (See interim order for more information.)
Tentative Ruling for February 10, 2021:
Resolve motion on the following terms to which the debtors and the US Trustee have stipulated:
If the substantive consolidation motion currently set for hearing on February 24, 2021 is denied: (A) the Debtors will wind down their cash management system within 30 days after entry of the order denying the substantive consolidation motion; and (B) the authority to use the Debtors’ Cash Management System should be extended to 30 days after entry of such order.
On or before February 8, 2021, the Debtors will amend the December MOR to include "to/from" accounting. Thereafter, the Debtors will provide "to/from" accounting in all MORs until the first month after the Court enters an order granting substantive consolidation.
The Debtors will continue to maintain its single non-DIP Comerica bank account, to be used solely to pay the Debtors’ credit cards as authorized by the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order. The Debtors will not carry on deposit at any given time more than
$100,000 in the non-DIP Comerica bank account. If the Debtors’ balance on deposit in the non-DIP Comerica account exceeds the FDIC limit of $250,000 at any given time, the
11:00 AM
Debtors will obtain a surety bond in favor of the United States to collateralize any excess over the FDIC limit in an amount no less than 115%, based on the highest average daily balance. The Debtors will close the Prepetition Merchant Accounts and Prepetition Payroll Account, as those terms are defined in the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order, in a manner consistent with the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order.
3/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
As to AVR California and AVR Vanpool only, grant motion on a final basis.
As to AVR Georgia, AVR Nevada and AVR Texas, grant motion on an interim basis through and including June 18, 2021 and continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
6/11/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 16, 2021. (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL TERMS.)
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
fr. 2-24-21, 3-17-21, 4-21-21
Docket 165
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/7/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798
6/7/21 - Michael D'Alba, (310)277-0077 6/7/21 - Danya Elbendary (Listen Only) 6/9/21 - Richard Solomon, (858)793-8516 6/14/21 - Elan Levey, (213)894-3997
6/14/21 - Jess Bressi, (949)241-8967
2/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
3/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
At debtors' request, continue hearing on motion to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
11:00 AM
6/11/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 16, 2021. (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL TERMS.)
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
[OST]
Authority to Obtain Credit Secured by a First-Priority Security Interest in All Assets of the Estate Pursuant to DIP Financing, Settlement, Adequate Protection, and Plan Support Agreement with 1st Source Bank
Approval of Such Agreement
A Good Faith Determination
Waiver of Stay
Docket 428
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/7/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798
6/7/21 - Michael D'Alba, (310)277-0077 6/7/21 - Danya Elbendary (Listen Only) 6/9/21 - Richard Solomon, (858)793-8516 6/14/21 - Elan Levey, (213)894-3997
6/14/21 - Jess Bressi, (949)241-8967 6/14/21 - Peter Lianides, (949)720-4155 6/14/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
6/15/21 - Haleh Naimi, (310)734-2677
11:00 AM
6/15/21 - Jeff Burh
6/15/21 - Eric Von Helms, (414)962-5110 6/15/21 - Laurie Spindler, (469)221-5125 6/15/21 - Randall Mroczynski, (714)431-1073 6/16/21 - Kevin Morse, (312)985-5556
Grant request for judicial notice. What is the debtor's response to the questions/requests raised by Hitachi and the objections interposed by the Texas Taxing Authorities and the Committee?
Court will not approve a priming lien as against security deposit held by San Diego County Regional Airport Authority.
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
fr. 6-9-21
Docket 409
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/3/21 - Randall Mroczynski, (714)431-1026 6/7/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
6/7/21 - John Tedford, (310)923-0798
6/8/21 - Haleh Naimi, (310)731-2677 6/9/21 - Richard Solomon, (858)793-8516 6/14/21 - Elan Levey, (213)894-3997
6/14/21 - Jess Bressi, (949)241-8967
6/14/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
6/15/21 - Haleh Naimi, (310)734-2677 6/15/21 - Jeff Burh
6/15/21 - Eric Von Helms, (414)962-5110 6/15/21 - Laurie Spindler, (469)221-5125
11:00 AM
6/15/21 - Randall Mroczynski, (714)431-1073
6/16/21 - Kevin Morse, (312)985-5556
Grant motion. Approve agreement. Make finding that Hinklease agreement was a true lease.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
Docket 242
NONE LISTED -
Continue hearing for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to assess whether or not to support this motion.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
11:00 AM
Docket 291
NONE LISTED -
Deny motion as moot (or premature). There is no immediate need for the committee to file a supplement to its investigation with the court at this time, if the supplement has not already been filed.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Movant(s):
Official Creditors Committee of Kfir Represented By
Richard Lee Wynne Edward J McNeilly
11:00 AM
Docket 44
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling from March 31, 2021:
Court recognizes that the debtor has appealed the January 22, 2021 state court judgment in favor of the Unatins and claims that entry of judgment in the Unatins' favor constituted a great miscarriage of justice. Nevertheless, the court takes judicial notice that a jury of 12 people, after a six-week jury trial, found in a lengthy and detailed verdict form that the Unatins were entitled to judgment in their favor on their claims against the debtor for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and conversion and that the debtor's wrongful acts were done with malice, oppression and/or fraud. The state court also issued a statement of decision describing the jury's findings as follows: "On Verdict Form 1, the jury found in favor of Mrs. Unatin and against Mr. Gavrielli on all of her claims: breach of fiduciary duty regarding the Company, breach of fiduciary duty regarding the outside investments, fraud, conversion, breach of contract, and breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing. The jury also found that Mr. Gavrielli "engaged in malice, oppression and/or fraud with respect to each of Mrs. Unatin's tort claims."
On these facts, the court is seriously concerned that the debtor cannot be relied upon to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. As a result, it is difficult for the court to defer to the business judgment of the debtor in possession with regard to such matters as the structure of its plan of reorganization or to rely upon the accuracy or adequacy of information contained in the debtor's disclosure statement.
11:00 AM
The state court findings constitute sufficient cause for this court to appoint a chapter 11 trustee under Bankruptcy Code section 1104. Accordingly, court will issue an order to show cause why a chapter 11 trustee should not be appointed in this chapter 11 case and set a hearing on that order for approximately three to four weeks. Continue hearing on debtor's disclosure statement for approximately 90 to 120 days to give any chapter 11 trustee appointed an opportunity to assess the debtor's financial situation and access to resources and to decide whether he or she supports the plan structure proposed by the debtor or whether he or she believes that more expedited payment arrangements for creditors should be pursued.
NOTE: A large portion of the debtor's response to the Unatins' objection to his disclosure statement is devoted to accusations of wrongdoing on the part of one or both of the Unatins. However, these accusations, even if true, have no tendency to prove that the debtor can be trusted to serve as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. Proof that the Unatins have misbehaved does not mean that the debtor hasn't. It is certainly possible that both the debtor and his sister are bad actors. Perhaps the Unatins should not be trusted either, but they aren't trying to serve as debtors in possession in this chapter 11 case.
Final Ruling for March 31, 2021:
Parties and the committee are willing to attempt to mediate their respective disputes. In the interim, the Court will issue OSC re appointment of a trustee and set it for hearing on June 30, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give the parties and the committee an opportunity to try to resolve their respective disputes through mediation.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Tentative ruling for March 31, 2021 remains unchanged. Continue hearing on disclosure statement to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
11:00 AM
Continue hearing for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to assess whether or not to support the debtor's plan of reorganization.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
11:00 AM
fr. 3-31-21
Docket 38
NONE LISTED -
3/18/21 -- Court approved stipulation extending deadline for committee to respond to motion for approval of disclosure statement.
See tentative ruling for matter no. 100. Continue hearing on disclosure statement to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5,
2021.
OFF CALENDAR. AMENDED DISCLOSURE STATEMENT HAS BEEN FILED.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
11:00 AM
Docket 308
NONE LISTED -
Continue hearing for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to assess whether or not to support the debtor's plan of reorganization.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
11:00 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Continue status for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to acquaint himself/herself with the case.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
2:00 PM
Docket 70
ZoomGov Appearance by:
5/25/21 - Matthew Kennedy (310)801-4234
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Veronica Turner Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Robert A Hessling
2:00 PM
[Fees requested: $3525, Expenses: $0.00]
Docket 116
NONE LISTED -
Grant application. Allow on a final basis fees of $3,525 and no costs. As case will be dismissed, enter order directing debtor to pay these amounts. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Global Acquisitions Holding Group, Represented By
Onyinye N Anyama
Movant(s):
Susan K Seflin (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Susan K Seflin (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
fr. 1-27-21, 2-24-21, 4-7-21
Docket 52
NONE LISTED -
1/21/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 24, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 27, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Hearing was continued by stipulation in light of service issues. Amended motion was reserved on creditor and creditor's attorney, but was not served on Judge Bluebond or on the address on the abstract of judgment attached to the motion. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2021:
Schedule evidentiary hearing (via Zoom) for the parties to cross-examine one another's experts as to the value of the property.
6/15/21 -- Parties have lodged stipulation resolving matter. OFF CALENDAR.
Debtor(s):
Samvel Gukasyan Represented By Armen Shaghzo
Movant(s):
10:00 AM
Samvel Gukasyan Represented By Armen Shaghzo
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
11:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
11:00 AM
MOVANT: CITY OF BEAUMONT
advanced from 7-27-21
Docket 928
5/27/21 - Notice of New hearing date filed by Movant, approved by court. Hearing advanced to JUNE 23, 2021 @ 11AM.
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/17/21 - Marc A. Levinsion, (530) 304-5283
6/17/21 - Misty Calder, (760) 322-2275
6/22/21 - Jonathan Shardlow, (909)890-4499 x 1770 6/22/21 - Jeffrey Broker, (949)222-2000 x 201
Grant movant's request for judicial notice and Krentel's original and supplemental requests for judicial notice.
Rulings on Motion to Strike/Evidentiary Objections:
Motion to Strike
Deny motion to strike. Shardlow was employed to represent the interests of
11:00 AM
both the City and the Preserve in connection with the CEQA Litigation. Shardlow is not representing the Preserve's interest by submitting a declaration, he is offering testimony. There is nothing in the declaration that discloses the City's confidential information. If the City believes that Shardlow has violated the rules of professional conduct, it can report him to the State Bar of California.
Evidentiary Objections
(For ease of reference, court has numbered the objections.)
Krentel's Objection to Parton Declaration
Overrule.
Overrule.
Movant's Evidentiary Objections Shardlow Declaration
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule as to first sentence. Sustain (lack of foundation/personal knowledge) as to second and third sentence. Sustain (best evidence rule; lack of foundation) as to fourth sentence. Sustain (hearsay; best evidence rule) as to fifth sentence.
Overrule as to first sentence. Sustain (hearsay) as to second sentence. Overrule as to balance of quoted language.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
11:00 AM
Sustain (lack of foundation/personal knowledge).
Overrule.
Krentel Declaration
Sustain (lack of foundation; relevance).
Sustain (lack of foundation; relevance).
Sustain (lack of foundation; this is argument, not evidence).
Overrule as to first and second sentence. Sustain (best evidence rule) as to third and fourth sentences. Sustain as to fifth sentence (lack of personal knowledge). Sustain as to sixth sentence (relevance). Sustain as to seventh, eigth and ninth sentences (lack of foundation/personal knowledge; relevance).
As to first sentence, sustain (lack of foundation/personal knowledge) as to steps taken by anyone other than declarant. Sustain as to second sentence (lack of foundation).
Tentative Ruling on the Merits
This case was commenced as a chapter 11 case more than 12 years ago on September 25, 2008. On December 16, 2008, the Court granted relief from the automatic stay to permit the parties to litigate disputes that had arisen concerning the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to a final judgment, including all appeals and post-trial motions. (Enforcement remained stayed.) The court confirmed a plan on December 1, 2011, but subsequently converted the case to chapter 7 on November 7, 2012.
The debor's only significant asset was approximately 1,284 acres of vacant land in Riverside County that is part of the Legacy Highlands (the "Property"). In or about 2016 or 2017, the Court approved a settlement pursuant to which Scott Krentel, a principal of the debtor, agreed to purchase the Property for
$5,350,000. According to the trustee (John Menchaca), the estate received a
$1,000,000 deposit in connection with that purchase on May 16, 2018, and Krentel has paid two option extension fees to extend the deadline for him to close this sale. The trustee reports that Krentel has no extensions left and is required to close the sale in or about the end of March 2022, by paying the unpaid balance of the purchase price ($4,350,000). If Krentel fails to make this payment, the trustee of the secured creditor's bankruptcy estate will be permitted to foreclose. The trustee reports that there are no conditions
11:00 AM
precedent to Krentel's obligation to close. Therefore, the trustee filed a statement of position with regard to this motion in which he states that "the Trustee does not have any position with regard to the City's motion."
A single opposition to the motion was filed on behalf of the debtor (which, to the extent that it even continues to exist and is not under the control of the trustee, no longer has any interest in the Property), Krentel (the nondebtor purchaser of the Property) and Portero Commercial, LLC, which has been described as the owner of an adjoining property in the Legacy Highlands. No creditor has opposed the motion.
As the court had granted relief from stay for the parties to proceed with the CEQA litigation, on February 3, 2009, the Superior Court issued a statement of decision (Exhibit 2 to Movant's request for judicial notice ("MRJN")) in which it found that the environmental impact report relating to the Legacy Highlands (the "EIR") was deficient. The Superior Court issued a judgment to this effect on March 30, 2009 (Exhibit 3 to MRJN) and, based on that judgment, issued a peremptory writ of mandate (Exhibit 4 to MRJN) directing Movant to set aside approval of the project and suspend all activity on the project until it has taken the actions necessary to bring the project into compliance with CEQA.
Pursuant to writ of mandate, on June 30, 2009, the City enacted Resolution no. 2009-24, rescinding all prior approvals for the project. In the fall of 2017, the debtor asserted that this action had violated the automatic stay, and the parties entered into a stipulation approved by the court on December 20, 2017. In that stipulation, the parties agreed that Resolution 2009-24 should be treated as void, withdrawn and cancelled as having been entered in violation of the automatic stay. It is worthy of note that, at no time during this process, did the City ever agree that it would never seek relief from stay to comply with the writ. And there is no contention on anyone's part, nor could there be, that the Superior Court violated the automatic stay by issuing its statement of decision or the accompanying judgment and writ.
Krentel has now submitted to the City for consideration a Final Partially Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (the "PREIR). The City claims that it wants to, and is obligated by law to, consider approval of the PREIR and
11:00 AM
that, before it can do that, it must comply with the Superior Court's mandate that it set aside and vacate its approval of the EIR and related entitlements. In light of the problems it had last time around when it tried to comply with the writ of mandate, it seeks relief from stay to permit it to go through with this process. Krentel claims that the City can consider the PREIR without complying with the writ of mandate and setting aside its prior approval of the EIR and the related entitlements and, therefore, that the City does not need additional relief from stay to proceed because the prior order granting relief from stay is sufficient.
In other words, distilled to its essence, the real issue here is whether or not the City is required to comply with the writ of mandate and rescind its approval of the EIR and related entitlements before it can consider the PREIR. Framed in this manner, could it be any clearer that this Court is not the right tribunal to decide this issue?
The automatic stay is a temporary measure designed to give a debtor or a bankruptcy estate a breathing spell so that it there can be an orderly reorganization or liquidation of its assets. It is not intended to be a permanent fix that prevents compliance with state court orders. And the automatic stay was created for the benefit of the estate and its creditors (and in some instances, the debtor), not for the benefit of a neighboring property owner or a nondebtor party who is obligated to purchase an asset of the estate.
Moreover, the existence of a police power exception to the automatic stay underscores the idea that it is not the province of a bankruptcy court to decide such matters as zoning, building permits, compliance with state environmental laws and the like.
Even if the Court were to deny the City's motion at this time, this would do little more than "kick the can down the road." The Court is not going to order the City to consider the PREIR without first rescinding the EIR and the related entitlements, or adjudicate whether this step is required, so what would denial of the motion accomplish? Denial would serve merely to delay the impact of the inevitable reality that Krentel and Portero cannot rely upon this court to resolve issues concerning compliance with CEQA or how entitlements, permits and plans are to be processed within the City of Beaumont.
11:00 AM
The bankruptcy court is not a court of appeals for the Superior Court and cannot and will not reverse the state court's judgment that the original EIR should be vacated and set aside. This court long ago granted relief from the automatic stay to permit the parties to litigate the CEQA litigation to a final judgment in state court. Did anyone appeal that judgment? If Krentel and Portero have some objection to the manner in which the City intends to proceed with regard to consideration of the PREIR, they will need to resolve that dispute wherever other nondebtor property owners would go for resolution of such a dispute. This court is not that place.
Grant motion. In light of trustee's nonopposition to the motion, include waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
The Preserve, LLC Represented By Jeffrey W Broker Richard A Harvey
Movant(s):
City Of Beaumont Represented By Marc A Levinson
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim
John J Menchaca (TR) Steven J. Katzman Matthew M Clarke Jeffrey W Broker
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: TD AUTO FINANCE, LLC.
Docket 21
NONE LISTED -
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
YIBIN ADAM CHEN Represented By Alice Lin
Movant(s):
TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# 2FMGK5C82FBA03637 MOVANT: EXETER FINANCE, LLC.
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Angie Hanson Represented By Kevin T Simon
Movant(s):
Exeter Finance LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: CENLAR, FSB AS SERVICER FOR CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Jesus Nelson Claros Represented By Jasmine Firooz
Movant(s):
Cenlar, FSB as servicer for Represented By Robert P Zahradka
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: 1ST SOURCE BANK
fr. 2-23-21, 3-2-21, 3-17-21, 5-25-21
Docket 163
NONE LISTED -
2/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 2, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021
2/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Condition continuation of the automatic stay on the debtor's continuing to make adequate protection payments. Court agrees that debtor needs to provide adequate protection to protect the lender from depreciation even with regard to idle vehicles, but the debtor is not only paying adequate protection payments calculated with regard to the number of miles each vehicle is driven, it is also paying interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on all amounts due. Lender has no right to receive interest payments as a component of adequate protection, even if it is oversecured and therefore entitled to add post-petition interest to the amount of its claim. The manner in which the debtor has been calculating per mile depreciation appears reasonable and court has no problem with payments of interest at 6 percent rather than 7. These are adequate protection payments that need not correspond in any way with the amount of interest that may be accruing as a matter of contract. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that
10:00 AM
depreciation of idle vehicles occurs at a more rapid rate than this.
Court agrees that calculations should start as of petition date. If debtor has not made sufficient adequate protection payments to cover the amount of depreciation that its calculations reflect since that date, it will need to make up the missing payments.
Court agrees that lender should be provided information about damage to vehicles. Debtor should keep lender apprised when damage occurs and should report to lender how it intends to address the problem in a timely manner. Further, if sales have occurred from which proceeds have not been remitted to lender, debtor needs to account for and remit any withheld proceeds.
Court rejects lender's argument that vehicles are not necessary to an effective reorganization. Debtor is in the business of renting vehicles and it is utilizing these vehicles. Debtor cannot run a car rental business without vehicles to rent; and debtor is not currently in a position to purchase a new fleet of vehicles or to withstand a loss of 25 percent of its current fleet.
Final Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, continue hearing to May 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Any supplemental evidence must be filed and served by May 18, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Has any progress been made since March 17 hearing? Tentative ruling remains unchanged.
5/24/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
10:00 AM
Has any progress been made since March 17 hearing? Tentative ruling remains unchanged.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
1st Source Bank Represented By Haleh C Naimi
10:00 AM
MOVANT: AL MILLER & SONS ROOFING CO., INC. fr. 5-25-21, 6-8-21
Docket 180
NONE LISTED -
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Grant motion to the extent necessary to permit parties to litigate their disputes to a final judgment. Enforcement should remain stayed.
6/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2021.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Al Miller & Sons Roofing Co., Inc. Represented By
Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
v. Doug Wall Construction, et al MOVANT: TANDEM WEST GLASS, INC. fr. 5-25-21, 6-8-21
Docket 181
NONE LISTED -
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Grant motion to the extent necessary to permit parties to litigate their disputes to a final judgment. Enforcement should remain stayed.
6/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2021.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Tandem West Glass, Inc. Represented By Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:21-01034 Gavrieli et al v. Gavrieli et al
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
3/31/21 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference and hearing on motion to dismiss to; June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
5/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving motion to dismiss original complaint. Amended complaint to be filed not later than May 24, 2021. Any hearing on motion to dismiss that complaint will be held June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021.
6/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 10, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. See order for additional dates. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 29, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Defendant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
William N Lobel
10:00 AM
Gavrieli Brands LLC Pro Se
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
William N Lobel
Plaintiff(s):
Dikla Gavrieli Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dikla Gavrieli, derivatively on Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dean Unatin Represented By
Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:21-01034 Gavrieli et al v. Gavrieli et al
fr. 3-31-21, 4-27-21, 6-8-21
Docket 1
5/24/21 - Amended Complaint filed.
3/31/21 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference and hearing on motion to dismiss to; June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
5/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving motion to dismiss original complaint. Amended complaint to be filed not later than May 24, 2021. Any hearing on motion to dismiss that complaint will be held June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Status conference continued to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.. OFF
CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021.
6/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 10, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. See order for additional dates. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 29, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
10:00 AM
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Defendant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
William N Lobel
Gavrieli Brands LLC Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Dikla Gavrieli Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dikla Gavrieli, derivatively on Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dean Unatin Represented By
Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01649 Gonzalez v. JEON et al
fr. 12-15-20, 3-30-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Continue status conference 90 to 120 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued mediation.
12/16/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file updated status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- January 5, 2021 Deadline to complete mediation -- March 30, 2021
1/15/21 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by March 16, 2021? How long do the parties need to complete discovery? Hearing required.
4/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation dismissing defendant Sung Sik Lim only.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Where is the scheduling order that plaintiff was to lodge after the last status conference (setting discovery cutoff of October 29, 2021)? Where is the joint status report that should have been filed by June 15, 2021? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
ERIN JEON Represented By
Jaenam J Coe Gilad Berkowitz
Defendant(s):
ERIN JEON Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Yong Hun Kim Represented By Jaenam J Coe
Yoon Jeong Choi Represented By Todd A Fuson
Young Sook Kang Represented By Todd A Fuson
JSDB, Inc. Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Hyo Jin Japanese Restaurant, Inc. Represented By
Todd A Fuson
DOES 1 through 30, inclusive Pro Se
Jong Kim Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Richard Y Park Represented By Jaenam J Coe
2:00 PM
Carolyn Park Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
LION & ERIN CORPORATION Represented By
Jaenam J Coe
Joint Debtor(s):
Jong Kim Represented By
Jaenam J Coe Gilad Berkowitz
Plaintiff(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez Represented By Cameron H Totten Jaenam J Coe Todd A Fuson
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01242 Cabrera v. Bronson
Bronson
fr. 10-1-19, 11-12-19, 3-17-20; 6-30-20, 10-27-20, 2-23-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Set deadline for filing amended complaint and deadline for responding to amended complaint.
10/4/19 -- Court granted motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file and serve amended complaint not later than October 7, 2019. Defendant shall have to and including October 21, 2019 to file and serve a response to amended complaint. If the response is another motion to dismiss, it should be set for hearing on November 12, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. Status conference continued to same date. Requirement that joint status report be filed is waived.
Tentative Ruling for November 12, 2019:
Set deadline for filing of answer to first and third claims for relief. Set continued status conference date and deadline for filing joint status report. New dates should be in order on motion to dismiss.
Final Ruling for November 12, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 17, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by March 3, 2020. Court set deadline of November 27, 2020 for defendant to file and serve answer to first and third claims for relief.
2:00 PM
(Second and fourth claims for relief were dismissed with prejudice.)
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to June 30, 2020 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than June 16, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to October 27, 2020 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than October 13, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 30, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 27, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to February 23, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than February 9, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON OCTOBER 27, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
At request of parties, continue status conference to June 29, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than June 15, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
At request of parties, continue status conference to October 12, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than September 28, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 29, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Bradley M. Bronson Represented By
J. Bennett Friedman
2:00 PM
Michael D Sobkowiak
Defendant(s):
Bradley M. Bronson Represented By
J. Bennett Friedman Michael D Sobkowiak
Plaintiff(s):
Candido Cabrera Represented By Gregory M Salvato
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By Timothy J Yoo
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01075 International Fidelity Insurance Company v. Oh et al
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Court granted motion to dismiss with prejudice. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Defendant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
Joint Debtor(s):
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
Plaintiff(s):
International Fidelity Insurance Represented By
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey D Hook Robert J Berens Ali Salamirad
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01126 Pouladian v. Deco Enterprises, Inc. et al
fr. 7-14-20, 9-1-20, 11-3-20, 12-1-20, 2-2-21, 3-30-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
6/23/21 - John Yates, (818)381-5891
6/24/21 - Amy Mousavi, (949)864-9667
According to the parties' status report, a mediation must be completed in a related LASC action by July 31, 2020. Have the parties scheduled a mediation date? Hearing required.
7/21/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for Edith Pouladian to file and serve response to cross-complaint -- August 4, 2020
L/D for plaintiff to file and serve opposition to motion to dismiss (if response is a motion to dismiss) -- August 18, 2020
L/D for Edith Pouladian to file and serve reply to any such opposition -- August 25, 2020
Contined status conference and hearing on any motion to dismiss -- September 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for September 1, 2020:
2:00 PM
What is the status of this matter? Set deadline for filing of responses to first amended cross-complaint. How long do the parties anticipate it will take to conduct discovery? Hearing required.
9/2/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for cross-complainants to file second amended cross-comlaint -- 9/11/20 L/D to file joint status report -- October 20, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- November 3, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for November 3, 2020:
Where is joint status report that should have been filed by October 20, 2020? How much time do the parties need to conduct discovery? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to an early mediation? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
If court grants motion to dismiss (number 214), the number of claims asserted in this adversary proceeding will be reduced and the parties' responses to the questions posed in the status report may be different. Continue status conference approximately 60 to 90 days and require parties to file an updated status report. (The parties should respond to all questions raised by the status report.)
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
Parties have already completed a day of mediation. Discuss with parties whether additional mediation would be helpful. Does either party contemplate being in a position to bring any pretrial motions? Set discovery cutoff and continue case status conference.
2/9/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- March 16, 2021
2:00 PM
L/D to complete discovery -- December 17, 2021
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Discuss with parties whether it might be a good time to make another attempt at resolving this matter through mediation.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Plaintiff checked the box, "no," in response to the question, "Do you want this matter sent to mediation at this time." Defendant checked the box marked, "yes." In the comments section, plaintiff states that it thinks a mediation in September could be useful. It seems, therefore, that the issue is when a continued mediation should occur, not whether. Is that correct? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
Defendant(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
Craig Allen Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Benjamin Pouladian Represented By John R Yates
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01071 Lee et al v. Tash et al
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Plaintiff obtained a replacement summons on May 15, 2021. Was that summons served in a timely manner? If not, why not? Hearing required.
6/24/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to July 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 29, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Defendant(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Pro Se
Raymond M. Tash, D.D.S., A Represented By Summer M Shaw
Plaintiff(s):
Sung Y. Lee Represented By
2:00 PM
Keneth J Catanzarite
Sung Y. Lee DMD, Inc. Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01073 Lee, DDS et al v. Tash et al
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Where is joint status report that should have been filed two weeks before status conference? What is the current status of the arbitration? If there is no hearing set, what is the process for arranging for a hearing date? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Defendant(s):
Raymond Madijidian Tash Represented By Paul S Marks Yuriko M Shikai
Raymond M. Tash, D.D.S. a Represented By Paul S Marks Yuriko M Shikai Summer M Shaw
Plaintiff(s):
Sung Y. Lee DMD, Inc. Pro Se
Sung Young Lee, DDS Pro Se
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01103 Nolan v. Spencer
Docket 78
NONE LISTED -
Court will not deny motion based on movant's failure to comply with a local rule of the district court that has no analog in the local rules of the bankruptcy court. Moreover, it is far from clear what such a conference would have accomplished in this instance.
Whether plaintiff will be able to prove the allegations of the complaint or not is a different question from whether or not the complaint states a claim for relief. Plaintiff has adequately alleged all required elements of a claim for fraud -- including that defendant did not intend to perform under the contract at the time the parties entered into the contract, that plaintiff justifiably relied on defendant's representations, that plaintiff suffered damage as a result, etc.
Moreover, court finds the inferences that plaintiff intends to draw from the relevant facts to be plausible, namely that the nature and extent of the deficiencies in the proposed plans prepared by defendant demonstrate either that defendant was completely lacking in the qualifications necessary to perform the work (which he would have to have known) or that he made no effort to perform the necessary work.
Deny motion to dismiss. Set deadline for defendant to file an answer to the complaint.
Debtor(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Movant(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Plaintiff(s):
Gwendolyn Nolan Represented By
Lane M Nussbaum
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01142 Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. v. Slotkin
fr. 8-25-20, 12-1-20, 4-6-21, 4-27-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Set discovery cutoff and continue status conference for approximately three to four months.
8/28/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting discovery cutoff for February 26, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Are parties requesting extension of February discovery cutoff? Hearing required.
12/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Status conference continued to April 6, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- March 23, 2021 Discovery cutoff extended to July 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 6, 2021:
What, if any, progress has been made in this action since the last status conference? Has any discovery been conducted? Hearing required.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2021:
Court continued status conference to this date so that dates can be coordinated with status conferences in trustee's adversary proceeding. Continue status conference to date set for continued status conference in trustee's adversary proceeding.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Plaintiff filed a unilateral status report. Where is the declaration that must accompany a unilateral status report pursuant to LBR 7016-1(a)(3)? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Southwest Guaranty Investors, Ltd. Represented By
Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01672 Miller v. SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF DECEMBER 14, 2012 et al
fr. 4-27-21
Docket 48
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling from April 27, 2021:
Deny motion. Debtor has failed to provide trustee with comprehensible cash flow statements or to adequately explain how funds previously released to Olympic ($445,304.22) have been spent. Debtor claims that funds are needed for past due interest payments to Fan, yet it appears that payments are being made to Fan and others as partnership distributions. And why aren't the rent payments received by Olympic and Clover sufficient to make the required mortgage payments? And why is it appropriate for funds generated by a sale of assets of Olympic to be used to pay expenses attributable to other LLC's? Clearly, the debtor is in the practice of treating the various entities as if they are alter egos of one another, expending resources of one entity for the benefit of another as he sees fit. Debtor has not demonstrated that Olympic needs the requested funds to pay its own ordinary course operating expenses.
Debtor also requests that the funds be released to Olympic to cover future and unexpected obligations of the Olympic or the other entities. How does this make sense? The purpose of the preliminary injunction was to prevent the debtor from dissipating these assets while the trustee litigates whether the assets of these entities should be treated as assets of the debtor's bankruptcy estate. This purpose would be defeated entirely if the debtor were permitted to continue liquidating assets and disbursing the proceeds in
2:00 PM
any manner he sees fit without appropriate oversight to confirm that the expenses in question are legitimate ordinary course operating expenses for the entity whose funds the debtor seeks to expend.
Debtor is correct that no receiver has been appointed for the various entities, but, in light of the way the debtor has been managing these entities, perhaps such an appointment would be appropriate. Has the trustee explored whether there are sufficient grounds to support the appointment of a receiver for these entities?
Final Ruling for April 27, 2021:
Continue hearing to June 29, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Any supplemental declarations and a status report should be filed not later than June 22, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Debtor's June 14, 2021 declaration states, at paragraph 9, that certain expenses need to be paid to bring the Jerry Fan Notes current, as well as other legitimate business expenses of various entities and that a "true and correct copy of these expenses is attached as Exhibit "11" and incorporated by reference." Court assumes that debtor means Exhibit 10, as that is a list of bills. However, the exhibit is not particularly helpful. It does not provide any information whatsoever as to whose expenses these bills are and, as the debtor himself points out, on May 13, 2020, the Superior Court specifically found that "it is correct that Respondent [debtor] has consistently used the assets of Antiquarian Traders and Olympic Holdings as if they were his personal property and bank accounts rather than assets of a trust to which he is not a beneficiary."
Any finding by the state court as to whether the debtor is or is not an alter ego of a particular entity for the purpose of litigation with the debtor's ex-spouse may not be binding on the trustee, who represents the interests of creditors who were not parties to that action. And the question of whether or not the assets of these other entities are assets of the debtor's bankruptcy estate may not be the same issue as whether these entities are the debtor's alter egos under state law.
2:00 PM
Further, where is the evidence as to what is actually due Jerry Fan for what purpose? Has the trustee been able to verify with Fan what amounts are due with regard to secured loans against the property? And has the debtor accounted for the rents being generated by the properties owned by these other entities, which the trustee contends are sufficient to pay the obligations of these entities? It is not helpful to prepare an exhibit that shows only expenses and not receipts and other disbursements by these entities.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
MARK ABBEY SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
14257 CHANDLER MANOR LLC Represented By
David S Mayes
17841 PALORA MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
Robert Mayman Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
748 DETROIT MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
2:00 PM
LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se
SAVANNAH SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se
Movant(s):
MARK ABBEY SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
748 DETROIT MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
14257 CHANDLER MANOR LLC Represented By
David S Mayes
17841 PALORA MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
Robert Mayman Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
SAVANNAH SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
2:00 PM
INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
Plaintiff(s):
Elissa Miller Represented By
Robyn B Sokol
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01672 Miller v. SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF DECEMBER 14, 2012 et al
fr. 1-26-21, 4-27-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Continue status conference until after date of anticipated mediation in fall of 2021. Set discovery cutoff for late November, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
MARK ABBEY SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
2:00 PM
748 DETROIT MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
14257 CHANDLER MANOR LLC Represented By
David S Mayes
17841 PALORA MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
Robert Mayman Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se
SAVANNAH SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
Plaintiff(s):
Elissa Miller Represented By
Robyn B Sokol
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 6
6/23/21 - Case Dismissed.
Vacate OSC as moot. Case has already been dismissed. No appearance required. Court will prepare order.
Debtor(s):
Jaime Godofredo Tejada Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
[Presumption of Undue Hardship]
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Is debtor driving the vehicle? If not, who is? Is original contract being modfied in any way to benefit the debtor? Is debtor current on the payments? Will the debtor be able to remain current on the payments? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Eva Dolores Ruiz Represented By Raymond Perez
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 108
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/29/21 - Nancy Clark, (626)332-8600
Grant motion. Waive appearances. Movant is authorized to upload order consistent with tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
Kyle Henry Walkenhorst Represented By Michael E Clark
Movant(s):
Kyle Henry Walkenhorst Represented By Michael E Clark Michael E Clark Michael E Clark Michael E Clark Michael E Clark
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Rosendo Gonzalez
10:00 AM
Approve Compromise with JPMorgan Chase Bank
Approve Compromise with AP Highland Park LP and Authorize Lease Rejection of Los Angeles Premises
Approve Compromise with Gaetani Real Estate, Inc. for Steve Tappe et al. and Authorize Lease Rejection of San Francisco Premises
Authorize Sale Free and Clear of Liens of Estate's Right, Title and Interest in Intangible Assets including Assignment of Executory Contracts
Authorize Sale Free and Clear of Liens of Estate's Right, Title and Interest in Personal Property located at Los Angeles Premises
Authorize Sale Free and Clear of Liens of Estate's Right, Title and Interest in Personal Property located at San Francisco Premises
Authorize Abandonment of Property Remaining in Leased Premises
Docket 37
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/22/21 - Eveline Gentry, (213)533-5937 6/23/21 - Mark Romeo
6/29/21 - Alphamorlai Kebeh
6/29/21 - Zev Schechtman, (310)277-0077 6/29/21 - Joseph Delmotte, (858)750-7639
10:00 AM
6/29/21 - Ron Bender, (310)229-1234
Are all agreements conditioned on approval of each and every agreement? Are any of the agreements conditioned on approval of any other agreement? Court appeciates the desire of the trustee to enconomize, but, except to the extent that the effectiveness of a given agreement is conditioned on approval of another agreement (and perhaps not even then), the court would prefer that separate compromises be the subject of separate motions. The trustee has combined too much into a single motion here, as a result, the motion is slight on detail and confusing.
What are the tangible assets being sold? Is there an inventory of them anywhere or is there just the general description contained in the body of the motion and the agreement? What steps has the trustee taken in an effort to market the tangible assets?
What are the debtor's franchise rights? Is the debtor the franchisor or a franchisee? Are these agreements even assignable? Copies of these agreements are not attached. Are there any arrearages under the agreements to be assumed and assigned? Exhibit A to Exhibit 5 identifies the contracts to be assigned as franchise agreements and multi-use development agreements in Singapore, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE. Were the counterparties to these agreements even served with this motion? Is there any description of what these rights actually are anywhere in the motion?
Why is Exhibit 5 not even completed or signed? Has Vijay Pillai signed this agreement? (Debtor has now filed a signed copy of this agreement.)
What is the trustee's response to Chase's notice of conditional nonopposition?
Hearing required.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Mr. Holmes, Inc. Represented By David B Zolkin
Movant(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By Zev Shechtman
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By Zev Shechtman
10:00 AM
Docket 443
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/22/21 - John Tedford, (310)277-0077
6/29/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
6/29/21 - Elan Levey, (213)894-3997
Grant motion. Extend debtors' authority to use cash collateral on same terms as in last interim order through December 31, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
10:00 AM
Docket 75
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/29/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
6/29/21 - Todd Turoci, (951)784-1678
Grant motion, provided debtor is willing to agree that dismissal would come with a bar to refiling under any chapter of the bankruptcy code for a period of not less than 180 days.
Debtor(s):
1369 Londonderry Estate, LLC Represented By Todd L Turoci
Movant(s):
1369 Londonderry Estate, LLC Represented By Todd L Turoci
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/29/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
6/29/21 - Todd Turoci, (951)784-1678
12/23/20 -- Court approved order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- January 11, 2021
Bar date -- April 9, 2021
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Has broker had an opportunity to assess value of property? Does broker believe that property can be sold for an amount in excess of the secured claims? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2021:
There is no plan on file. Debtor reports that he will start making monthly payments to secured creditors on March 9, 2021. Has this occurred?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 9, 2021:
In its May 28, 2021 status report, debtor represents that a motion to dismiss will be filed before the June 9 hearing. As of mid-day on June 7, no such motion has been filed. If, in fact, motion is filed, continue case status
10:00 AM
conference to date of hearing on motion to dismiss.
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on motion to dismiss.
Debtor(s):
1369 Londonderry Estate, LLC Represented By Todd L Turoci
10:00 AM
1) Extend the SARE Deadline Under Section 362(d)(3) or, in the Alternative,
(2) Abandon the Estate's Interest in Certain Real Property fr. 5-18-21, 5-26-21, 6-9-21, 6-16-21
Docket 182
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/22/21 - Caroline Djang, (949)263-6586
6-25-21 - Marsha A. Houston, (213) 457-8000
6-25-21 - Christopher O. Rivas, (213) 457-8000 6/29/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
6/29/21 - Damian Capozzola (213)448-2709 6/29/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779 6/29/21 - Evan Smith, (951)894-7332
6/29/21 - Alan Tippie, (213)626-2311 6/29/21 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311 6/29/21 - K. Todd Curry, (619)238-0004
10:00 AM
5/14/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing SARE deadline (by consent) to May 28, 2021 and continuing hearing to May 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 18, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
What, if any, progress has the trustee made toward a sale of any of the property? Which of the alternative forms of relief is the trustee seeking at this juncture? Hearing required.
5/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 9, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 26, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 9, 2021:
Tentative ruling from May 26, 2021 remains unchanged.
6/8/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 16, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Tentative ruling from May 26, 2021 remains unchanged.
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2021:
In status report for July 7 status conference, trustee represented that he is circulating yet another stipulation to continue this hearing for 21 days. Has that stipulation been signed? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
11:00 AM
Docket 189
- NONE LISTED -
OFF CALENDAR. HEARING WAS ADVANCED TO JUNE 8, 2021 AND RESOLVED AT THAT TIME.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
11:00 AM
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/29/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
6/29/21 - Najah Shariff, (213)894-2534
A promise to pay does not constitute adequate protection for the value of the IRS's interest in the debtor's accounts receivable. If the debtor wants to demonstrate that there will be no net diminution in the value of the IRS's interest in the collateral, court will need to see projections that show how the business will do and what its receivables will be if it spends the monies that it proposes to spend for its operating expenses. The debtor has filed no evidence in support of the motion and provides no information whatsoever as to the anticipated future performance of the debtor's business.
Continue hearing to give debtor an opportunity to supplement the record to provide the required information. In the interim, debtor can only use cash collateral with the IRS's consent.
Debtor(s):
Community Therapies Represented By John D Faucher
Movant(s):
Community Therapies Represented By John D Faucher
11:00 AM
Docket 10
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/29/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
6/29/21 - Najah Shariff, (213)894-2534
Provided debtor supplies proof of service, authorize debtor to pay prepetition wages and honor prepetition benefits up to an aggregate of priority amount per employee, excluding insiders. (Debtor represents that none of its employees are insiders.)
Grant of this motion does not authorize the debtor to use cash collateral for the purpose of making these payments. Debtor will need to obtain either consent or a court order to permit the use of cash collateral.
Debtor(s):
Community Therapies Represented By John D Faucher
Movant(s):
Community Therapies Represented By John D Faucher
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 102
- NONE LISTED -
Grant motion. Enter order authorizing United States Marshal to evict the debtor and the trustee to remove the debtor's personal property if the premises have not been vacated and property has not been removed as of 10:00 a.m. on July 6, 2021.
7/1/21 -- Court approved stipulated order resolving matter. Off calendar. No appearances required.
Debtor(s):
Eun Ho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang Donald E Iwuchuku
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION DBA TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES
Docket 8
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Austin Nagel, (925)577-3430
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Marhlyn Joel Sapugay Represented By Chirnese L Liverpool
Movant(s):
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By
Austin P Nagel
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN # 5FNR L5H43FB015329
MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Vincent Frounjian, (818)859-7511
Deny request for relief under section 362(d)(2) due to existence of equity, but grant motion under section 362(d)(1) for cause (with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3)) as debtor has voluntarily surrendered vehicle.
Debtor(s):
Young Kyu Chun Represented By Andrew S Cho
Joint Debtor(s):
Wha Suk Chun Represented By Andrew S Cho
Movant(s):
AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By
Vincent V Frounjian
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# 3CZRU6H39KG722623 MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Vincent Frounjian, (818)859-7511
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Noel Burrowes Represented By Kevin Tang
Movant(s):
HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS, INC.
Docket 31
- NONE LISTED -
6/21/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (See order for additional deadlines.) OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 6, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Hilmore LLC Represented By
Crystle Jane Lindsey Daniel J Weintraub
Movant(s):
Strategic Acquisitions, Inc. Represented By Harris L Cohen
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01183 DYE v. Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. et al
Docket 162
- NONE LISTED -
The provisions of FRBP 7068 do not override the requirements of FRBP 2019. Movant misreads the holding of Gordon v. Gouline (In re Gordon), 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20852 (D. Col. 1995). In that case, the trustee sued to enforce an offer of judgment made by defendants that the trustee had sued. The defendants argued that the trustee had not accepted the offer of judgment before it had expired because, even though acceptance had been communicated within the requisite 10-day period, the trustee's acceptance was conditioned on approval by the bankruptcy court under FRBP 9019. The defendants argued, therefore, that the offer had been withdrawn automatically at the expiration of the 10-day period because there had been no unconditional acceptance within the required period. According to defendants, the only way a trustee can accept a 7068 offer of judgment in a timely manner is by obtaining bankruptcy court approval under Rule 9019 within the 10-day period of Rule 7068. The District Court disagreed and treated the trustee's acceptance of the offer conditioned on bankruptcy court approval as effective for the purpose of Rule 7068.
The holding of Gordon does not actually discuss the issues raised in the present case. Can the other party to the litigation move for entry of judgment under Rule 7068 if the trustee never actually accepted the settlement, or if the trustee accepted the settlement and then reversed her position before entry of judgment or approval of the compromise under Rule 9019? Or can a bankruptcy court dispense with the need for a motion by the trustee under Rule 9019 if a litigant moves for entry of a judgment under Rule 7068? Or can a party to a mediation use communications that occurred in the context of
2:00 PM
a confidential mediation in an effort to prove that a meeting of the minds occurred in the absence of a written agreement indicating the parties' intention to waive confidentiality and be bound even before the parties have executed a formal written settlement agreement? These are thorny issues that are not resolved by the holding in Gordon.
Court agrees with the trustee that it is clear from the language of Rule 9019 that the court may approve a compromise only in response to a motion by the trustee on notice to creditors. And, before the court may approve that compromise, it must make the requisite findings under In re A&C Properties, 784 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1986). The parties agree that whether to approve a compromise under this standard or not rests within the "sound discretion" of the Bankruptcy Court. In making this analysis, the court relies heavily on the judgment and analysis of the trustee as to the reasonableness of the settlement in question. In this case, there is no motion from the trustee, and the trustee does not recommend the settlement or is unwilling to assert that the proposed compromise satisfies the requisite standard. On these facts, the compromise cannot be approved.
Deny motion.
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
Defendant(s):
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
John Burgee Represented By
2:00 PM
Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Robert Abramoff Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Movant(s):
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By Steven M Berman Stella A Havkin
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01195 Dye v. Kim et al
fr. 10-27-20, 1-19-21, 4-20-21, 5-4-21
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
10/28/20 -- Court entered order denying motion to dismiss, setting deadline of November 30, 2020 for filing of answers to complaint and setting status conference for January 19, 2021. (Parties are to file joint status report not later than January 5, 2021.)
1/5/21 -- Court orally granted motion for default judgment against defendant Connie Kim. Action remains unresolved as against other defendants.
Tentative Ruling for January 19, 2021:
Set discovery cutoff for late April, 2021. When will plaintiff be in a position to bring her motion for summary judgment? Hearing required.
1/22/21 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff -- May 17, 2021
Cont'd status conference -- April 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- April 6, 2021
2:00 PM
If motion for partial summary judgment is filed by March 9, 2021, it may be heard at the same time as the status conference.
Tentative Ruling for April 20, 2021:
Status conference report represents that a motion for summary judgment will have been filed by the time of the status conference and will be set for hearing on May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Has such a motion been filed?
Discuss with parties issues surrounding scheduling of meet and confer and whether it makes sense to order this matter to mediation.
Tentative Ruling for May 4, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matter.
6/7/21 -- Court entered stipulated judgment against defendant Kye Sik Moon.
Tentative Ruling for July 6, 2021:
What, if any, claims remain unresolved (and not moot) in this adversary proceeding? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Eun Ho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang Donald E Iwuchuku
Defendant(s):
Eun Ho Kim Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Eunho Kim as Trustee of the Eun Ho Represented By
Donald E Iwuchuku
Kye Sik Moon Represented By Donald E Iwuchuku
2:00 PM
Selk Group, Inc., a California Pro Se
DOES 1 - 20, Inclusive Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Carolyn A. Dye Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01103 Nolan v. Spencer
fr. 6-30-20, 10-6-20, 1-12-21, 2-23-21, 4-6-21
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
7/1/20 -- Court signed order setting discovery cutoff of September 30, 2020. Tentative Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Where is joint status report that should have been filed by September 22, 2020? Have parties completed their discovery? Does either party anticipate filing any pretrial motions? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for October 6, 2020:
Continue status conference to January 12, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than December 29, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021:
Sanction counsel for each party $150 for (again) failing to file joint status report in a timely manner. What is the status of this action? Have the parties now completed discovery? If not, are they requesting an extension of the discovery cutoff? Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation? If not, why not.
Hearing required.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Parties seem to be somewhat confused as to what was to be filed two weeks before the pretrial conference. A status report is due two weeks before a status conference. A joint pretrial order is due two weeks prior to a pretrial conference. The court scheduled a pretrial conference. The parties should have lodged a joint pretrial order two weeks before the pretrial conference. The court does not need a status report.
Impose sanctions of $250 on counsel for defendant for failing to participate in the preparation of a joint pretrial order.
Does plaintiff want to file an amended complaint? If so, set deadline for this purpose, take pretrial conference off calendar and schedule a status conference. If not, continue pretrial conference to give the parties a further opportunity to prepare a JOINT pretrial order.
3/31/21 -- Court granted plaintiff's motion to continue pretrial conference to July 6, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 21, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for July 6, 2021:
Court denied debtor's motion to dismiss on June 29, 2021 and set new deadline for debtor to file answer to amended complaint. Vacate pretrial conference and conduct this hearing as a status conference.
6/29/21 -- At hearing held this date on defendant's motion to dismiss, court took pretrial conference off calendar and scheduled status conference for September 14, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file updated status report by August 31, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 6, 2021.
Debtor(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
William K Spencer Represented By Daniel King
Plaintiff(s):
Gwendolyn Nolan Represented By
Lane M Nussbaum
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 33
- NONE LISTED -
Vacate OSC. Debtor has now filed missing documents. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED. COURT WILL PREPARE ORDER.
Debtor(s):
Justin Lloyd Evans Represented By Ryan C Wood
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
1. $100 due 6/3/21
2. $100 is due on 7/2/21 3. $100 is due on 8/3/21
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor has now paid the installment due June 3, 2021. Has debtor paid installment due July 2, 2021? (Another installment is due August 3, 2021.)
Debtor(s):
Gabriela Zavala Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
fr. 3-10-21, 4-7-21, 5-5-21
Docket 42
- NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling from March 10, 2021:
It is not the case that appointment of a trustee moots this motion. Debtor only owns a portion of the title to the affected real property as a tenant in common. There are three other owners who are not in bankruptcy. The receiver was not appointed for the debtor. The receiver was appointed to take charge of the property. It makes no sense to have the receiver controlling three of the undivided interests in the property and the debtor's trustee controlling the other. If there are concerns about the choice of Mr. Leslie as the receiver, the court will grant relief from stay to permit the trustee that the court will appoint in response to the motion on calendar as number 4 to litigate those concerns on behalf of the debtor, should he or she elect to do so.
Final Ruling from March 10, 2021:
Court appointed trustee in response to related motion. Court continued hearing on this motion to April 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give the trustee an opportunity to consider his/her position with regard to this motion. Order continuing hearing should clarify that receiver may remain in possession pending outcome of the hearing on this motion.
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021.
10:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Trustee requests a continuance to July 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and that the status quo be maintained in the interim. Grant trustee's request. Continue hearing to July 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Authorize receiver to remain in possession in the interim. (Counsel for receiver should lodge order to this effect.)
Movant objects and claims that the trustee should abandon the estate's interest in the real property. But that is not the relief requested by this motion. If the movant would like the trustee to abandon the property and the trustee is not willing to do so, the lender should bring a motion to compel abandonment. The granting of a motion to permit the lender to remain in possession would not amount to the abandonment of the estate's interest in the property, nor would it result in termination of the automatic stay. It would simply permit the receiver to remain as the custodian of the property while the trustee continues to administer the estate.
NOTE: Movant complains that the co-tenants are demanding concessions in exchange for their willingness to convey their interests to the estate, but what obligation do they have to convey these interests to the estate? The trustee could no doubt file an adversary proceeding under section 363(h), but that would entail expense and delay.
6/28/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and excusing receiver from turnover in the interim. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 7, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III- Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Marsha A Houston Christopher O Rivas
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
6/29/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000 7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Continue status conference to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (same date and time as hearing on motion to excuse receiver) as a holding date. No new status report is required for that status conference. Appearances waived on July 7, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
10:00 AM
Docket 152
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
7/6/21- Leslie Cohen, (310)934-5900
7/6/21 - Nathan Meyer, (310)826-7474
Pursuant to the proposed compromise, the debtor plans to relinquish its 59.933 percent interest in Canico in exchange for a payment of $75,000 and releases for itself and its principal, Mike Galam. The objecting creditors assert secured liens against the debtor's interest in Canico. The motion contains no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is permissible for the debtor to dispose of an asset in which the secured creditors have interests over their objection. How is this any different from a sale of this asset under section 363? Therefore, the debtor should be required to demonstrate that one of the prongs of section 363(f) has been satisfied before the compromise could be approved.
Moreover, what consideration is Mike Galam providing in exchange for the releases that he is obtaining? Yes, he has an equity interest in the debtor, but there is no showing in the motion that this interest is actually worth anything. Moreover, this debtor in possession has a history of acting contrary to the interests of its bankruptcy estate. How can the court rely on the business judgment of such a debtor to make the findings necessary to approve this compromise? Perhaps the court should appoint a trustee so that it will have the benefit of input from a reliable fiduciary as to the bona fides of the compromise.
10:00 AM
Deny motion for approval of compromise.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
Dismissing Bankruptcy Case Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B)(1), or, in the Alternative,
Granting Relief from the Automatic Stay fr. 3-17-21, 4-21-21, 6-9-21, 6-16-21
Docket 82
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
7/6/21- Leslie Cohen, (310)934-5900
7/6/21 - Nathan Meyer, (310)826-7474
Final Ruling from March 17, 2021:
Continue hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with hearing on debtor's disclosure statement. The court will have a better opportunity to examine whether the debtor is acting in good faith and proceeding diligently with a reorganization of its affairs in the context of evaluating its proposed plan and disclosure statement. No new briefing on this motion will be permitted. Additional briefing as to whether there is a reasonable likelihood of reorganization within a reasonable period should come in the context of the hearing on the debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
10:00 AM
Having reviewed and analyzed the debtor's proposed plan, the court is left with the distinct impression that, with limited exception, this case is a two- party dispute and that the purpose of the bankruptcy filing was for the debtor to obtain a more favorable forum for the litigation of any remaining disputes with Canico. Grant motion to dismiss as a bad faith filing.
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Parties reported that a settlement has been reached. What is the nature of the agreement? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 7, 2021:
Would Canico and the debtor be entitled to enter into the proposed compromise if this case weren't in bankruptcy? If so, perhaps the motion should be granted and the case dismissed. Discuss with the parties the remedies that would be available to other secured creditors if the case were dismissed. Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Movant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
10:00 AM
Claim No. Claimant:
Bruce Cardenas $70,000.00
Craig Franze $100,000.00
3.3 Donald Dean $610,000.00
Galam Family Irrevocable Trust $1,860,000.00
Jeff Malinovitz $500,000.00
Quality Property Trust $1,500,000.00.
FR. 6-9-21, 6-16-21
Docket 134
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
7/6/21- Leslie Cohen, (310)934-5900
7/6/21 - Nathan Meyer, (310)826-7474
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
10:00 AM
This is a chapter 11 case. The debtor in possession has a duty to examine and challenge claims that are unenforceable. Here, instead, the debtor is defending the claims. Continue hearing to give creditors a further opportunity to defend their claims. Notice served upon them should advise that, if they do not choose to do so, the objections will be sustained. Court notes that Canico's statute of limitations argument does not apply to claims evidenced by written promissory notes -- Franze, Cardenas and Malinovitz (if a written promissory note can be located for Malinovitz).
Tentative Ruling for July 7, 2021:
Tentative ruling from June 16, 2021 remains unchanged. (It does not appear from the docket that a supplemental notice of the kind referenced in the court's June 16, 2021 tentative ruling was ever served.)
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
7/6/21- Leslie Cohen, (310)934-5900
7/6/21 - Nathan Meyer, (310)826-7474
Set deadline for serving notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
10/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 7, 2020
Bar date -- December 7, 2020
L/D to file updated status report -- December 28, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by December 28, 2020? Hearing required.
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has received status report filed December 29, 2020. Other than submitting to a 2004 examination and serving a notice of bar date, what if any steps toward reorganization have been accomplished since the last status conference and what has to happen before the debtor
10:00 AM
will be in a position to propose a plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with hearing on creditor's motion to dismiss or in the alternative relief from stay. Waive requirement that new status report be filed for this continued conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 3, 2021:
Creditor noticed hearing on motion to dismiss or in the alternative for relief from stay for March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m Continue case status conference to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with that hearing. No new status report required. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 3, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Continue case status conference to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to approve debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 7, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
Docket 17
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/6/21 - Anthony Mikhail, (818)400-6998
Court set this motion for hearing because, prior to the resolution of this motion, the debtor failed to attend two 341(a) meetings and, as a result, the chapter 7 trustee asked that this case be dismissed. Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Marrama v. Citizen's Bank of Mass, 549 U.S. 365 (2007), the court used to take the position that a debtor who met the eligibility requirements for a chapter 13 debtor could convert a case to chapter 13 as of right. After Marrama, it is clear that the court should not grant a motion to convert if the debtor is not acting in good faith, if the debtor is not complying with the provisions of the bankruptcy code or orders of this court or if there is another reason that precludes the debtor from being able to confirm a chapter 13 plan if the case is converted. However, neither the court nor the chapter 7 trustee can make a determination as to whether the debtor is acting in good faith or attempting to utilize the bankruptcy case to accomplish an improper purpose if the debtor fails to appear and respond to the chapter 7 trustee's questions at a 341(a) meeting. The court will not grant a motion converting the case to chapter 13 unless the debtor first submits to an examination under section 341(a) of the bankruptcy code.
Either dismiss the case based on the debtor's failure to appear at two 341(a) meetings or, if debtor prefers, continue hearing on motion and direct the chapter 7 trustee to renotice the 341(a) meeting so that the trustee can examine the debtor under oath and have an opportunity to submit an objection to this motion, if warranted, after the trustee has conducted that examination.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Maria Elena Esteem Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
fr. 10-2-19, 1-15-20, 4-15-20, 6-17-20, 7-15-20, 8-5-20, 8-12-20, 9-30-20,
10-21-20, 3-3-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
9/16/19 -- Court approved stipulation between US Trustee and debtor concerning the appointment of a patient care ombudsman.
9/16/19 -- Court approved order setting bar date of November 30, 2019 and directing debtor to serve notice of bar date by September 30, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for October 2, 2019:
Continue case status conference approximately 90 days. Court will set deadline for filing plan at continued status conference.
Final Ruling for October 2, 2019:
Continue case status conference to January 15, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than January 3, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for January 15, 2020:
Status report was filed belatedly on January 12, 2020. Has debtor filed the valuation motions referenced in the status report? When/how does the
11:00 AM
debtor anticipate resolving the issues concerning Gentle Care Transport, Inc. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for April 15, 2020:
Where is the status report that the Court directed the debtor to file by April 3, 2020?
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on U.S. Trustee's motion to dismiss or convert.
Tentative Ruling for June 17, 2020:
Set continued status conference for approximately 90 days. Order trustee to file updated status report prior to continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for July 15, 2020:
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Continue case status conference to August 5, 2020 at 2:00 pm to be heard concurrently with continued hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for August 5, 2020:
Continue case status conference to date of continued hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for August 12, 2020:
11:00 AM
Continue case status conference to date of confirmation hearing.
Tentative Ruling for September 30, 2020:
If court confirms plan, set post confirmation status conference. If court continues confirmation hearing, continue case status conference to date of continued confirmation hearing.
Tentative Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Parties were able to resolve objections concerning the form of the confirmation order. OFF CALENDAR. COURT SET POST- CONFIRMATION STATUS CONFERENCE FOR MARCH 3, 2021 AT 11:00 A.M.
Tentative Ruling for March 3, 2021:
Where is the post-confirmation status report that should have been filed by February 19, 2021? (The confirmation order scheduled this status conference and set a February 19, 2021 deadline for filing the first post- confirmation status report.) Hearing required.
OFF CALENDAR. COURT HAS ENTERED FINAL DECREE.
Debtor(s):
MedCoast Medservice Inc. Represented By Henry D Paloci
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
David Keith Gottlieb (TR) Represented By Ron Bender
Krikor J Meshefejian
11:00 AM
§ 363 Free and Clear of Liens, Claims, and Encumbrances, Subject to Higher and Better Offers and Ancillary Bidding Deadlines
[OST]
Docket 101
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168 7/6/21 - Aram Ordubegian (213)629-7410 7/6/21 - M. Douglas Flahaut, (213)443-7512 7/6/21 - Jeffrey Reeves, (714)549-6155 7/6/21 - Daniel Lev, (310)556-1001
7/6/21 - Ronald Richards, (310)556-1001
There is no per se prohibition on the sale of an asset of a bankruptcy estate to an insider, but, when a sale is to an insider, the proponent of the sale has a heightened responsibility to show that the sale is proposed in good faith and for fair value. In re Med. Software Solutions, 286 B.R. 431 (Bankr. D. Utah 2002) (citing In re Industrial Valley Refrigeration & Air Cond'g Supplies, Inc., 77 B.R. 15 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987)). And the question of good faith, when an insider purchases assets, turns on whether the debtor breached its duty of full disclosure: the debtor must fully disclose the relationship between the buyer and the seller. Med. Software, supra, citing In re Wilde Horse Enterprs., Inc., 136 B.R. 830 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1991).
11:00 AM
Even if the purchaser is not an insider, a failure on the part of the debtor to disclose accurately and completely the existence of any relationship between the debtor and the purchaser can, on the appropriate facts, constitute a fraud on the court sufficient to warrant vacating a sale order after the fact, even if the court previously made a good faith finding under section 363(m). See, e.g., In re Tri-Cran, Inc., 98 B.R. 609 (Bankr. D. Mass 1989). And the policies that favor transparency and public access to records require a debtor to disclose the identity of bidders for its property. Absent a showing sufficient to warrant sealing of records under Bankruptcy Code section 107(b), such information should be disclosed. See In Barney's Inc., 201 B.R. 703 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2003).
The debtor asks the court and other parties in interest to accept at face value the representations of the debtor and Donal Griffith that the debtor's principal has no connection to or relationship with the proposed buyer Pacific Green or the funds used to provide the down payment for the asset. Neither the debtor nor Donal Griffith has provided the objecting creditor Give Back LLC with access to the information and documentation necessary to determine whether these representations are accurate. Counsel for Pacific Green does not even return the objecting creditor's telephone calls.
If the debtor and the proposed purchaser are concerned about information becoming public, why have they not even provided this information to Give Back pursuant to a confidentiality agreement? The more secretive the debtor is about this information, the more concerned the creditor and the court are likely to become.
Give Back seeks a continuance of the sale hearing. The court is not persuaded that this is required in that Give Back could simply oppose the motion on the ground that it has not been provided with the information that it has requested and that the court has ordered the debtor to provide. The court will not approve a sale unless and until the debtor provides the information that Give Back has requested to permit it to evaluate whether there are any connections between the debtor and the proposed buyer and whether the sale has been proposed in good faith. If this means that the proposed purchaser will withdraw from the sale, so be it. The court will not approve the proposed sale unless and until all of the relevant facts and
11:00 AM
circumstances surrounding the sale have been disclosed.
Discuss with the parties whether, in light of the foregoing, the sale hearing should be continued or not.
Debtor(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut Annie Y Stoops Dylan J Yamamoto
11:00 AM
Docket 29
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Although the current version of the projections show the cash balances remaining fairly level throughout the period reflected on the projections, they show the starting balance of the accounts receivable at $580,000 and that the balance of the accounts receivable at the end of the period will be $230,000. The debtor is proposing to make monthly payments of $45,291 to the IRS and
$1,850 to the EDD. Even if these payment amounts are added back into the balances (6 x $47,141 = $282,846), the result is total collateral remaining or used for the benefit of the secured creditors at the end of the period of
$512,846, which is significantly less than $580,000.
However, is any portion of the original $580,000 attributable to services rendered by employees for which they did not receive compensation? If so, this amount is illusory and should be reduced to the net amount that would remain if the employees had been compensated for the services that generated these receivables. Is there anyway to determine what the account receivable balance would have been if it did not include the amounts that should have been paid as compensation to give rise to the receivables?
Debtor represents that the projected income is actually less than the debtor's historical income. (See page 5, line 17, "Historical receipts are higher than the amounts projected.") If the debtor lacked the ability to pay withholding taxes during significant portions of the prepetition period, how will the amounts the debtor projects to receive post-petition enable it to not only remain current on
11:00 AM
the newly generated withholding taxes and to make adequate protection payments to catch up with the past-due taxes?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Community Therapies Represented By John D Faucher
Trustee(s):
Susan K Seflin (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
Docket 30
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
The motion still says that there are no insider employees. There is no page on the attachment for Mr. Jensen, but are there no other officers or directors who are owed wages? Have all of the questions previously raised by the US Trustee and the IRS been answered as to the debtor's vacation and sick leave policies? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Community Therapies Represented By John D Faucher
Trustee(s):
Susan K Seflin (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 55
- NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Barbara Ann Mitchell Represented By Marend M Garrett
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui
2:00 PM
Docket 87
- NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Debra C Polakowski Represented By Debora M Zumwalt
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Timothy J Yoo Carmela Pagay
2:00 PM
Docket 39
- NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Philip Yadkar Represented By Farbood Majd
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 25
- NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Thai Gourmet by Sri Maya LLC Represented By Stewart H Lim
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Represented By Jeffrey L Sumpter
2:00 PM
Docket 107
- NONE LISTED -
Grant application. Allow on interim basis fees of $28,000 and costs of $158.72. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due on pro rata basis from available funds. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
West Coast Recycling Services, Inc. Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Movant(s):
DUMAS & KIM, APC. Represented By James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim James A Dumas Jr
2:00 PM
[Fees requested: $46,242.00, Expenses: $218.30]
Docket 73
- NONE LISTED -
6/28/21 -- Court approved stipulation pursuant to which applicant agreed to reduce fees requested by $1,210.
Tentative Ruling for July 7, 2021:
Grant application. Allow on interim basis, pursuant to the above-referenced stipulation, fees of $45,032 and costs of $218.30. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due on pro rata basis from available funds. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Shaoqiang Chen Represented By Gary R Wallace
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By James A Dumas Jr Christian T Kim
2:00 PM
Special Counsel, Period: 10/22/2019 to 6/17/2021
[Fees requested: $43758.00, Expenses: $0.00]
Docket 76
- NONE LISTED -
Provided applicant supplies missing declaration from client, grant application. Allow on interim basis fees of $43,758 and no costs. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due on pro rata basis from available funds.
APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Shaoqiang Chen Represented By Gary R Wallace
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By James A Dumas Jr Christian T Kim
2:00 PM
B. Riley Advisory Services, a dba of Glassratner Advisory & Capital Group, LLC,
Financial Advisor, Period: 2/12/2021 to 5/31/2021
[Fees requested: $100,601.00, Expenses: $24.40]
Docket 486
7/1/21 - This matter will be heard by Judge Barry Russell on 7/6/21 @ 10am.
OFF CALENDAR. MATTER BEING HEARD BY JUDGE RUSSELL.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
2:00 PM
[Fees requested: $818,068.50, Expenses: $32,917.81]
Docket 474
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Grant application. Allow on interim basis fees of $818,068.50 and costs of
$32,917.81. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due on pro rata basis from available funds. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
2:00 PM
Docket 475
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Grant application. Allow on interim basis fees of $14,661 and costs of $3,254.33. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due on pro rata basis from available funds. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
2:00 PM
Docket 476
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Grant application. Allow on interim basis fees of $142,360 and costs of $150. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due on pro rata basis from available funds. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
2:00 PM
[Fees requested: $185,100.00, Expenses: $0.00]
Docket 477
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/2/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Grant application. Allow on interim basis fees of $185,100 and no costs. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due on pro rata basis from available funds. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
2:00 PM
[Fees requested: $138,405.00, Expenses: $1,013.82]
Docket 485
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/6/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
Grant application. Allow on interim basis fees of $138,405 and costs of $1,013.95. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due on pro rata basis from available funds. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Represented By Roye Zur
10:00 AM
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation re dismissal of bankruptcy case, resolving motion. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Louise James Charbonneau Represented By Michael Jay Berger
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: CIVIC VENTURES, LLC
Docket 16
- NONE LISTED -
According to debtor's response, after first obtaining a temporary restraining order, debtor sought a preliminary injunction to preclude the lender from foreclosing, presumably based on the same allegations outlined in the response to the motion. That request was denied. Debtor therefore seeks to rely on the automatic stay to provide the injunctive relief that the state court would not provide. This court is not a court of appeals for the state court. If debtor is not entitled to a preliminary injunction on these facts under applicable nonbankruptcy law, there is no basis for this court to grant injunctive relief for a nonbankruptcy reason.
According to the motion and the debtor's valuation, there is a nominal amount of equity in the property. Accordingly, grant motion under section 362(d)(1) based on lack of adequate protection. Deny request for waiver of 14-day stay and other forms of extraordinary relief for lack of cause shown.
Debtor(s):
Mainland Investments LLC Represented By Allan O Cate
Movant(s):
Civic Ventures, LLC Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Seth P Cox
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA
Docket 16
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/12/21 - Marjorie Johnson, (951) 778-9878
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Jose Canlas Pentecostes Jr. Represented By David H Chung
Joint Debtor(s):
Milanie Pedro Josef Represented By David H Chung
Movant(s):
BMW Bank of North America Represented By Marjorie M Johnson
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: AL MILLER & SONS ROOFING CO., INC. fr. 5-25-21, 6-8-21, 6-29-21
Docket 180
- NONE LISTED -
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Grant motion to the extent necessary to permit parties to litigate their disputes to a final judgment. Enforcement should remain stayed.
6/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 13, 2021:
10:00 AM
Tentative ruling from June 29, 2021 remains unchanged.
7/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 13, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Al Miller & Sons Roofing Co., Inc. Represented By
Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
v. Doug Wall Construction, et al MOVANT: TANDEM WEST GLASS, INC. fr. 5-25-21, 6-8-21, 6-29-21
Docket 181
- NONE LISTED -
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Grant motion to the extent necessary to permit parties to litigate their disputes to a final judgment. Enforcement should remain stayed.
6/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 13, 2021:
10:00 AM
Tentative ruling from June 29, 2021 remains unchanged.
7/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 13, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Tandem West Glass, Inc. Represented By Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
Approve Compromise with JPMorgan Chase Bank
Approve Compromise with AP Highland Park LP and Authorize Lease Rejection of Los Angeles Premises
Approve Compromise with Gaetani Real Estate, Inc. for Steve Tappe et al. and Authorize Lease Rejection of San Francisco Premises
Authorize Sale Free and Clear of Liens of Estate's Right, Title and Interest in Intangible Assets including Assignment of Executory Contracts
Authorize Sale Free and Clear of Liens of Estate's Right, Title and Interest in Personal Property located at Los Angeles Premises
Authorize Sale Free and Clear of Liens of Estate's Right, Title and Interest in Personal Property located at San Francisco Premises
Authorize Abandonment of Property Remaining in Leased Premises fr. 6-30-21
Docket 37
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/12/21 - Zev Schechtman, (310)277-0077 7/12/21 - Ron Bender
7/12/21 - Conte Cicala
10:00 AM
7/13/21 - Abullah Alkhabbaz 7/13/21 - Ayman Abdul Aziz 7/12/21 - Alphamorlai Kebeh 7/12/21 - Danya Elbendary
7/12/21 - Joseph Delmotte, (858)750-7639
7/12/21 - Vijay Kumar
Are all agreements conditioned on approval of each and every agreement? Are any of the agreements conditioned on approval of any other agreement? Court appeciates the desire of the trustee to enconomize, but, except to the extent that the effectiveness of a given agreement is conditioned on approval of another agreement (and perhaps not even then), the court would prefer that separate compromises be the subject of separate motions. The trustee has combined too much into a single motion here, as a result, the motion is slight on detail and confusing.
What are the tangible assets being sold? Is there an inventory of them anywhere or is there just the general description contained in the body of the motion and the agreement? What steps has the trustee taken in an effort to market the tangible assets?
What are the debtor's franchise rights? Is the debtor the franchisor or a franchisee? Are these agreements even assignable? Copies of these agreements are not attached. Are there any arrearages under the agreements to be assumed and assigned? Exhibit A to Exhibit 5 identifies the contracts to be assigned as franchise agreements and multi-use development agreements in Singapore, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE. Were the counterparties to these agreements even served with this motion? Is there any description of what these rights actually are anywhere in the motion?
10:00 AM
Why is Exhibit 5 not even completed or signed? Has Vijay Pillai signed this agreement? (Debtor has now filed a signed copy of this agreement.)
What is the trustee's response to Chase's notice of conditional nonopposition?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Mr. Holmes, Inc. Represented By David B Zolkin
Movant(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By Zev Shechtman
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By Zev Shechtman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01116 Avery v. Premiere Medical Center of Burbank, Inc. et al
fr. 7-14-20, 8-25-20, 12-1-20, 3-30-21, 4-27-21
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
6/9/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant to respond to complaint to July 17, 2020 and continuing status conference to August 25, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 25, 2020:
Discuss with parties procedures for withdrawal of reference when a jury trial has been requested. Discovery cannot await the resolution of that motion. Set discovery cutoff for approximately 120 days.
8/26/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- December 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- November 17, 2020 L/D to complete discovery -- February 26, 2021
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Are parties requesting extension of discovery cutoff? Hearing required.
12/7/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates:
2:00 PM
Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to complete discovery -- April 30, 2021
1/10/21 -- Court approved stipulation authorizing trustee to file first amended complaint.
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
According to the status report, the parties have negotiated a settlement in principle. Has this settlement been reduced to writing? What will the structure of the proposed settlement be? Hearing required.
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation and continued hearing to April 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 30, 2021.
4/13/21 -- Court granted motion approving compromise. (Lump sum payment due within 60 days after order approving compromise becomes final.)
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2021:
When does the trustee anticipate that he will be in a position to dismiss this action? Hearing required.
4/21/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to July 13, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation dismissing action pursuant to settlement. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Premiere Medical Management Represented By David L Oberg
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Premiere Medical Center of Represented By Ian S Shelton
Michael D Marsh, M.D. Represented By Ian S Shelton
NHP/PMB Burbank Medical Plaza I Represented By
Lloyd S Mann Paul B Derby
DOES 1-10, Inclusive Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Wesley H Avery Represented By Stephen L Raucher
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Daniel R Lahana Stephen L Raucher
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01048 Dye v. Chen et al
fr. 5-5-20, 6-2-20, 8-4-20, 8-11-20, 10-27-20, 12-15-20, 3-30-21, 6-8-21
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
4/3/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant to respond to complaint to April 17, 2020.
4/7/10 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant Chen to respond to complaint to May 1, 2020.
4/17/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline for defendant Wang to respond to complaint to May 1, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2020:
Continue status conference to June 2, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss filed by defendant Bin Wang. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MAY 5, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for June 2, 2020:
See tentative ruling for matter no. 204. Continue status conference to August 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report not later than two weeks prior to continued status conference. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 2, 2020.
6/4/20 -- Court approved order granting motion to dismiss with leave to amend and setting following dates:
2:00 PM
L/D for plaintiff to file amended complaint -- June 23, 2020
L/D for defendants to respond to amended complaint -- July 14, 2020 L/D to file updated status report -- July 21, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- August 4, 2020 at 2:00 pm.
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Continue hearing to August 11, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 4, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matter on calendar.
10/20/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference to December 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 27, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 15, 2020:
Continue status conference 90 to 120 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued mediation.
12/16/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file updated status report -- March 16, 2021
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- January 5, 2021 Deadline to complete mediation -- March 30, 2021
1/11/21 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Why does plaintiff state in status report that matter is not yet at issue? Defendant filed an answer to the second amended complaint in November. Parties participated in a mediation that was unsuccessful on March 16, 2021, yet both parties indicate that they want this matter sent to mediation. Have
2:00 PM
parties explored with mediator his/her willingness to conduct another day of mediation? Hearing required.
4/6/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting discovery cutoff for September 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
Trustee reports that matter has been settled, that settlement payment is now due and that action will be dismissed once settlement payment is made.
Continue status conference to July 13, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to provide an opportunity for the settlement payment to be made and for the trustee to dismiss the action. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 8, 2021.
6/8/21 -- Court approved order dismissing action pursuant to settlement. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Shaoqiang Chen Represented By Gary R Wallace
Defendant(s):
Shaoqiang Chen Represented By Gary R Wallace
Bin Wang Represented By
Michael Jay Berger
Plaintiff(s):
Carolyn Dye Represented By
Felix T Woo James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By James A Dumas Jr
2:00 PM
Christian T Kim
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01117 Retail Capital Partners, LLC. v. Oh et al
fr. 7-14-20, 11-3-20, 2-2-21, 4-6-21, 5-25-21, 6-8-21
Docket 4
- NONE LISTED -
Why don't the parties want this matter sent to mediation? Hearing required. 8/11/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for November 3, 2020:
Did the parties participate in a mediation on October 27, 2020. If so, what was the outcome? If not, why not?
If matter did not settle, set discovery cutoff for approxiamtely 120 days and final status conference for approximately same time frame.
11/13/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting continued status conference for February 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. and discovery cutoff for January 31, 2021. Parties should file joint status report not later than January 19, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for February 2, 2021:
Parties report that discovery is complete. Set a deadline for filing any pretrial motions and a date for pretrial conference.
2:00 PM
2/5/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- April 6, 2021 at 2 L/D to file pretrial motions -- February 23, 2021
L/D to have pretrial motions heard -- April 6, 2021
Tentative Ruling for April 6, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar.
5/11/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
5/19/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021.
6/11/21 -- Court approved stipulation dismissing action with prejudice. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
James Andrew Hinds Jr
Defendant(s):
Monica Shiun Oh Represented By Rachel M Sposato
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato
Joint Debtor(s):
Jimi P. Chae Represented By
Rachel M Sposato James Andrew Hinds Jr
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Retail Capital Partners, LLC. Represented By Joshua J Herndon
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Represented By
Michelle A Marchisotto
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01134 People Of The State Of California v. Slotkin
fr. 8-4-20, 12-1-20, 4-6-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/12/21 - Mark Slotkin, (323) 701-2275
Tentative Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Where is joint status report that should have been filed two weeks before status conference? Discuss with parties whether complaint needs further amendment to specify facts upon which certain of the claims are based.
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for August 4, 2020:
Court will strike first and second claims for relief. Continue status conference to December 1, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file joint status report by November 17, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 1, 2020:
Court has no reason to believe that the underlying bankruptcy case is likely to be dismissed at any point in the near future. Set discovery cutoff for approximately 4 months. Set further status conference for approximately
2:00 PM
same time frame.
Tentative Ruling for April 6, 2021:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on motion for summary judgment.
Tentative Ruling for July 13, 2021:
Court is confused by plaintiff's status report. Court only granted partial summary adjudication, yet most of plaintiff's responses to questions posed in status report are "N/A." Has plaintiff made a decision not to pursue the balance of the claims raised in the complaint? If so, should the court enter a final judgment on the claims that have been resolved and dismiss the balance? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
People Of The State Of California Represented By
Wendy A Loo
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01086 Mendez et al v. Tash, D.D.S
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
At request of parties, continue hearing to August 10, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to see if debtor dismisses underlying bankruptcy case. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 13, 2021. (7/7/21 -- Order entered to this effect.)
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Defendant(s):
Raymond M. Tash D.D.S Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Tomas Mendez Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Dulce Mendez Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 28
- NONE LISTED -
7/7/21 -- At hearing held this date, court sua sponte converted case to chapter 7. Court will enter order vacating OSC as moot. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Community Therapies Represented By John D Faucher
Trustee(s):
Susan K Seflin (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
11:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
11:00 AM
Docket 15
6/25/21 - $3.00 has been paid. Filing fee is now paid in full.
Debtor has now paid the remaining $3. Court will prepare order vacating OSC. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Adam Frantz Represented By
Steven A Alpert
Joint Debtor(s):
Ella Frantz Represented By
Steven A Alpert
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
Docket 35
- NONE LISTED -
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
Advanced Environmental Group Represented By
Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Pacific6 Environmental, LLC Represented By Richard H Golubow
11:00 AM
Docket 32
- NONE LISTED -
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Represented By
Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
GOLO, LLC Represented By
Richard H Golubow
11:00 AM
U.S.C. § 1112(b)
Docket 163
6/29/21 - Notice to pay Court costs in the amount of $350.00 was sent to Leslie Cohen, Debtor's Counsel and must be paid prior to this hearing.
7/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Movant(s):
Knotting Hill, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
S Double, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
Sefox Investment, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
IJ Properties LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
El Marino, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
11:00 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
12/17/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court advised parties that this status conference would be called at 11:00 a.m. instead of 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Set deadline for service of notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
2/1/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- April 7, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
L/D to serve notice of bar date -- February 1, 2021 Bar date -- March 19, 2021
L/D to file updated status report -- March 26, 2021
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
(Debtors need not continue answering the same questions in subsequent status reports. Debtors should include in its status report a general discussion of the status of the case and the debtors' efforts to reorganize their affairs.)
11:00 AM
Now that a number of states have lifted or reduced restrictions and travel is increasing, has the debtors' business been improving? When are the debtors' projecting that their busines will have "normalized"? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2021:
Court has reviewed debtor in possession's status report. Continue case status conference (as a holding date) to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters on calendar for that date. No new status report required for July 28 hearing. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/13/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
(Court previously granted a motion to set a bar date for August 20, 2021.)
Court has a number of questions based on its review of the debtor's status report.
The first paragraph on page 2 is more confusing than helpful. The court gathers that the debtor owns some parcels in Cathedral City that are part of a development known as the Rio Vista Village Specific Plan. The debtor's managing member is Inland Communities Corp., whose business address is the business address that the debtor is using. The balance of the real property within this development is owned by affiliates of the debtor, each of which also has Inland Communities Corp. as its managing member. Is this correct?
The entire development consists of approximately 892 parcels and common interest parcels. How many parcels does this debtor own and when did the debtor acquire these parcels?
Do we anticipate that the affiliates will also be filing chapter 11? If not, why not?
The debtor has two members: Inland Communities Corp.; and Kookie- Nana Partnership, Ltd? Jim Ahmad is the president of Inland? Who is Mohamad Younes? What is his connection to the debtor?
11:00 AM
What is a PPA? (A power purchase agreement?) Does DR Horton own property within Rio Vista Village, or property outside the development? Did the debtor sell the property to DR Horton or, if not, from whom did DR Horton acquire the adjacent property?
On page 3 of the report, the debtor refers to resolution of the City of Cathedral City's claim and dispute with the claim of Robott Land High Yield 1, LLC, which the debtor has identified as its secured lender. The status report previously referred to a lawsuit by the city against the debtor and Robott, concerning the delinquent special assessment. Is the debtor referring to a dispute between the city and Robott or a dispute between the debtor and Robott and, if the latter, what is the nature of the dispute?
The debtor reports that no one claims an interest in its cash collateral. Does the debtor have any current operations? Is the debtor generating any cash flow?
What has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to propose a plan?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Verano Recovery, LLC, a California Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
11:00 AM
MOVANT: GIVE BACK, LLC. fr. 3-30-21, 5-11-21, 5-26-21
Docket 59
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/13/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Grant motion insofar as it requests comfort order clarifying that automatic stay does not preclude movant from exercising its rights and remedies as against nondebtors under its guaranties and membership interest pledge agreements.
Debtors response to the motion is that there is a sizeable equity cushion, based upon its appraisal; however, opposition does not dispute or even respond to movant's contention that the value of movant's collateral is declining in value due to debtors' continuing failure to pay real estate taxes. Trustee's sale guaranties reflect that all of the properties are tax defaulted for nonpayment of taxes going back to 2018. (Accrual of interest on debtors' obligations to movant does not constitute a loss in value for which movant is entitled to receive adequate protection.)
Court acknowledges that, even if there is no equity in property, as these lots are the debtors' only assets, they are necessary to any possible reorganization, but the Court is not yet in a position to determine whether any reorganization is likely to occur within a reasonable period. Court is not
11:00 AM
inclined to schedule an evidentiary hearing as to the value of the property, as the court will not rely on the existence of an equity cushion as adequate protection when there is an actual and quantifiable diminution in value occurring due to the nonpayment of real property taxes and the accrual of interest thereon.
What is the aggregate amount of real estate taxes currently outstanding with regard to the lots and at what rate do these unpaid taxes accrue interest?
How much more in real estate taxes will become delinquent if not paid by April 10? If debtors want an opportunity to try to reorganize their affairs in chapter 11, they will need to at least keep the size of the debt senior to movant from increasing while they attempt to do so.
Enter adequate protection order that conditions continuation of the automatic stay on the debtors' remaining current with post-petition real estate taxes and making monthly payments to movant in an amount that is not less than the amount of interest and penalties that are accruing monthly on the unpaid real property taxes.
Set continued hearing on balance of relief requested in motion for approximately 90 days, by which time court should have a better sense of whether there is likely to be a reorganization within a reasonable period.
Final Ruling for March 30, 2021 (see order entered April 1, 2021):
Court entered adequate protection order requiring debtors to pay $55,261.26 to lender by close of business on April 9, 2021. (Lender will promptly pay taxes and bear responsibility for any penalties if real property taxes not paid by April 10, 2021.) If debtors don't pay this amount by April 9, 2021, debtors must pay this amount plus an additional $5,526.10 by April 15, 2021. In addition, debtors must pay $22,972.26 by April 15, 2021 and $7,657.42 by the 15th of each calendar month thereafter. Payments must be by wire or other immediately available funds. Debtors can have one 14-day cure period. Continue hearing on balance of relief to May 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for May 11, 2021:
11:00 AM
Docket does not reflect the filing of any declarations re default, and debtor filed status report reflecting that required payments have been made. Debtor requests that hearing be taken off calendar, but court intentionally set a continued hearing to consider the issue of whether the debtor is likely to be able to propose a confirmable plan within a reasonable period. What progress has the debtor made toward confirmation of a plan in this chapter 11 case? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
Debtor claims to be in compliance with adequate protection order. Revisit motion after conclusion of status conference.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2021:
Provided debtor remains current on adequate protection order, revisit motion after conclusion of hearing on related matters on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut Annie Y Stoops Dylan J Yamamoto
Movant(s):
Give Back LLC Represented By Daniel A Lev Ronald N Richards
11:00 AM
Authorizing Bidding Procedures For The Sale Of Estate Property
Approving The Sale Of Property Under 11 U.S.C. § 363 Free And Clear Of Liens, Claims, And Encumbrances, Subject To Higher And Better Offers
Approving The Form And Manner Of Notice
Docket 83
6/23/21 - Debtor's First Amended Motion Filed. ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/13/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Court rejects Give Back's contention that, because it holds a lien on all of the lots owned by the debtors, that the debtors may not sell less than all of the lots without its consent. If a debtor can demonstrate that a sale free and clear is appropriate under section 363(f), the fact that the asset to be sold is less than all of the lender's collateral is irrelevant.
Further, the Court will not let Give Back advance the argument that the debtor is precluded from selling free and clear of other lender's secured claims. That is an argument for them to advance, not Give Back. If they are not objecting to a sale free and clear (or to the debtor's contention that their liens are the subject of a bona fide dispute),court will not permit Give Back to advance this argument.
None of the cases cited by Give Back for the proposition that a dispute as to the amount of a debt cannot qualify as a bona fide dispute for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 363(f)(4) are binding on this court, and
11:00 AM
none of these cases stands for the proposition that the dispute must relate to perfection or ownership of the debt. This court is satisfied that a dispute as to the validity and enforceability of various charges asserted by the lender in its calculation of the amount of the debt can satisfy the requirements of section 363(f)(4). There is a pending state court action based on this dispute and the lender has not succeeded in having this lawsuit summarily dismissed. The court need not adjudicate the merits of the dispute in order to assess whether or not the dispute is bona fide, but the court is satisfied that, here, Give Back's interest is the subject of a bona fide dispute.
Moreover, based on the calculations the debtor has provided, and the significantly reduced broker's fee that the debtor has negotiated (and the fact that real estate taxes cannot be double-counted -- that is, included as a lien that must be satisfied as well as added to the balance due the lender), it does appear that there will be sufficient proceeds available to satisfy Give Back's lien in full. Therefore, a sale free and clear of Give Back's lien appears warranted under section 363(f)(3) as well.
Court is not persuaded that the debtor can sell free and clear of Give Back's lien under section 363(f)(5). Prior to the BAP's ruling in Clear Channel, this court read section 363(f)(5) as standing for the proposition that a sale free and clear may be authorized under this section unless the objecting party holds an interest that gives rise to a right of specific performance. The BAP rejected this approach in Clear Channel, and there does not appear to be another mechanism under applicable nonbankruptcy law pursuant to which Give Back could be compelled to accept less than payment in full as a monetary satisfaction of its claim. However, this is irrelevant because, as set forth above, it appears that the court may approve a sale free and clear under either section 363(f)(3) or section 363(f)(4).
Court need not finally adjudicate the amount of Give Back's claim in order to proceed with a sale. In the context of credit bidding, it is appropriate to permit Give Back to credit bid only the undisputed portion of its claim. Any other approach would be unworkable and ill-advised. If Give Back wants to bid more than this amount, it will need to bid the amount of any such excess in cash, but, if Give Back is the successful bidder and prevails when the claim dispute is resolved, any excess funds would be returned to Give Back.
11:00 AM
Court rejects the "artificial floor" argument advanced by Give Back as a basis for disapproving a sale. If Give Back believes that the purchase price proposed in the Option A sale is artificially inflated and that the proposed purchaser either does not exist or does not intend to perform, the solution for Give Back is simple. It should not credit bid. There is no reason for Give Back to bid, either through a credit bid or a bid that is part cash and part credit, an amount that exceeds whatever Give Back believes the property is worth. If the court were to approve the Option A sale to PCV, one of two things will be true -- either PCV will perform or it will not. If PCV fails to perform, the estate will still own the property, and the estate will be enhanced by the now nonrefundable deposit of $1.5M. If PCV performs, there will be sufficient funds available to satisfy Give Back's claim in full. (Even if Give Back believes that its claim will exceed the amount of the net proceeds, it will still have four additional lots available as collateral. And even if Give Back is correct in asserting that the value of these lots will be reduced because they will become land-locked, it is hard to imagine that these lots will be worth less than the amount necessary to satisfy what Give Back contends would be the remainder of its claim.)
Therefore, the only issue that concerns the court at this point is whether or not PCV has permitted Give Back to conduct discovery to obtain information of the kind that the Court has advised must be disclosed. Has Give Back been provided any additional information? And, if so, what, if anything, of note did this additional information reveal? As the Court has previously advised, the court will not approve a proposed sale to PCV unless PCV is forthcoming in providing Give Back with information of the kind set forth in this Court's June 15, 2021 order denying Give Back's application for an order shortening time.
Hearing required.
(NOTE: Because court will not approve a sale to PCV under Option A unless it is persuaded that the parties are acting in good faith and have made sufficient disclosures, it would be appropriate for an order approving the sale to include a 363(m) finding. However, in light of Give Back's opposition to the sale, court would not include a waiver of the 14-day stay.
11:00 AM
If court does not approve Option A, court will grant request that it schedule an auction for all 6 lots as set forth in Option B of the amended motion.)
Debtor(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut Annie Y Stoops Dylan J Yamamoto
Movant(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut Annie Y Stoops Dylan J Yamamoto
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/13/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Set deadline for debtor to file notice of bar date and bar date. If debtors are able to arrange for refinancing for their properties, would this case remain in chapter 11 or do the debtors anticipate being in a position to move to dismiss these cases? Hearing required.
3/8/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to file proofs of claim -- 4/30/21
L/D for governmental units to file proofs of claim -- 7/14/21 L/D to serve notice of bar date -- 3/8/21
Cont'd status conference -- 5/26/21 at 11:00 a.m. L/D to file updated status report -- 5/14/21
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
According to declaration from debtor's counsel, on May 11, 2021, he received proof from the escrow company that the earnest money deposit of $1.5M had been deposited into escrow. Proposed buyer was also suposed to sign a purchase agreement by that date. Has that occurred? If not, when is this supposed to occur? And how long does the buyer have to complete its due diligence? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2021:
11:00 AM
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on proposed sale.
Debtor(s):
Coldwater Development LLC Represented By Aram Ordubegian
M Douglas Flahaut Annie Y Stoops Dylan J Yamamoto
11:00 AM
fr. 6-16-21
Docket 242
- NONE LISTED -
Continue hearing for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to assess whether or not to support this motion.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
6/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Sara L. Chenetz Represented By Sara Chenetz Amir Gamliel
11:00 AM
fr. 6-16-21
Docket 291
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/12/21 - Jordan Kroop, (602) 351-8017
7/13/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168 7/14/21 - Bennett Spiegel, (310) 785-4603
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
Deny motion as premature. There is no immediate need for the committee to file a supplement to its investigation with the court at this time. Moreover, even if the Court were to reach the merits of the motion at this time, the motion should be denied. The information sought to be redacted does not qualify as information of the kind described in section 107(b)(1) or (2). This is a bankruptcy case. What an asset owned by the debtor is worth and how the debtor calculated this value is not confidential information.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
11:00 AM
Movant(s):
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Official Creditors Committee of Kfir Represented By
Richard Lee Wynne Edward J McNeilly
Trustee(s):
Sara L. Chenetz Represented By Sara Chenetz Amir Gamliel
11:00 AM
Docket 44
- NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling from March 31, 2021:
Court recognizes that the debtor has appealed the January 22, 2021 state court judgment in favor of the Unatins and claims that entry of judgment in the Unatins' favor constituted a great miscarriage of justice. Nevertheless, the court takes judicial notice that a jury of 12 people, after a six-week jury trial, found in a lengthy and detailed verdict form that the Unatins were entitled to judgment in their favor on their claims against the debtor for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and conversion and that the debtor's wrongful acts were done with malice, oppression and/or fraud. The state court also issued a statement of decision describing the jury's findings as follows: "On Verdict Form 1, the jury found in favor of Mrs. Unatin and against Mr. Gavrielli on all of her claims: breach of fiduciary duty regarding the Company, breach of fiduciary duty regarding the outside investments, fraud, conversion, breach of contract, and breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing. The jury also found that Mr. Gavrielli "engaged in malice, oppression and/or fraud with respect to each of Mrs. Unatin's tort claims."
On these facts, the court is seriously concerned that the debtor cannot be relied upon to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. As a result, it is difficult for the court to defer to the business judgment of the debtor in possession with regard to such matters as the structure of its plan of reorganization or to rely upon the accuracy or adequacy of information contained in the debtor's disclosure statement.
11:00 AM
The state court findings constitute sufficient cause for this court to appoint a chapter 11 trustee under Bankruptcy Code section 1104. Accordingly, court will issue an order to show cause why a chapter 11 trustee should not be appointed in this chapter 11 case and set a hearing on that order for approximately three to four weeks. Continue hearing on debtor's disclosure statement for approximately 90 to 120 days to give any chapter 11 trustee appointed an opportunity to assess the debtor's financial situation and access to resources and to decide whether he or she supports the plan structure proposed by the debtor or whether he or she believes that more expedited payment arrangements for creditors should be pursued.
NOTE: A large portion of the debtor's response to the Unatins' objection to his disclosure statement is devoted to accusations of wrongdoing on the part of one or both of the Unatins. However, these accusations, even if true, have no tendency to prove that the debtor can be trusted to serve as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. Proof that the Unatins have misbehaved does not mean that the debtor hasn't. It is certainly possible that both the debtor and his sister are bad actors. Perhaps the Unatins should not be trusted either, but they aren't trying to serve as debtors in possession in this chapter 11 case.
Final Ruling for March 31, 2021:
Parties and the committee are willing to attempt to mediate their respective disputes. In the interim, the Court will issue OSC re appointment of a trustee and set it for hearing on June 30, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give the parties and the committee an opportunity to try to resolve their respective disputes through mediation.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Tentative ruling for March 31, 2021 remains unchanged. Continue hearing on disclosure statement to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
11:00 AM
Continue hearing for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to assess whether or not to support the debtor's plan of reorganization.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
6/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Trustee(s):
Sara L. Chenetz Represented By Sara Chenetz Amir Gamliel
11:00 AM
fr. 6-16-21
Docket 308
- NONE LISTED -
Continue hearing for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to assess whether or not to support the debtor's plan of reorganization.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
6/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Trustee(s):
Sara L. Chenetz Represented By Sara Chenetz Amir Gamliel
11:00 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
Continue status for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to acquaint himself/herself with the case.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
6/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Trustee(s):
Sara L. Chenetz Represented By Sara Chenetz Amir Gamliel
11:00 AM
Docket 378
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/12/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931
The Court approved a loan to the chapter 11 debtor in possession to be used to pay operating expenses of the bankruptcy estate. That claim was secured by the estate's real and personal property, but it was not a nonrecourse loan. It is a valid chapter 11 expense of administation. Movant is only entitled to a single satisfaction, but, if there is no collateral available to satisfy the claim, movant retains a valid claim for a chapter 11 expense of administration for whatever amounts may be due under the applicable loan documents, including accrued interest and attorneys' fees and costs.
Grant motion. Allow movant chapter 11 expense of administration in the amount of $248,010.35 as of May 31, 2021, plus additional interest of $54.78 per day thereafter.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By
11:00 AM
Thomas H Casey
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 17
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alex Estelio Barrera Represented By Marlin Branstetter
Joint Debtor(s):
Virginia Barrera Represented By Marlin Branstetter
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Steven Joseph Melendrez Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Dana J Overbey Represented By Neil R Hedtke
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Judith Vasquez Represented By Marvin Jarrett Mann
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 18
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
NORMA ROSALES Represented By
Lisa F Collins-Williams
Trustee(s):
Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 34
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Esther Flores Lemus Represented By Christopher J Lauria
Joint Debtor(s):
Luis Ferrel Reynaga Represented By Christopher J Lauria
Movant(s):
EMVLP, LLC Represented By Sarah Doerr
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 14
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lorna Musngi Bernardo Represented By Marc Weitz
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gabriella Ameli Perez-Avila Represented By
Harout G Bouldoukian
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Cheryl Pemberton Bailas Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jose Antonio Perez Represented By Lauren M Foley
Joint Debtor(s):
Noemy Menjivar Castillo Represented By Lauren M Foley
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 11
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eugene Francis Galvin Represented By
Sanaz Sarah Bereliani
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Latonia Azeez Pro Se
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Humberto Castro Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ronald Carpio David Represented By Cynthia Grande
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Maria Del Carmen Hernandez Represented By Daniel King
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Sergio Ramirez Caro Represented By Michael Jay Berger
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 7
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Elizabeth Graciano Represented By Omar Zambrano
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Luciano Ortigoza Ramirez Represented By Lauren M Foley
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Vikie Carr-Hernandez Represented By Elena Steers
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Luis Alberto Salazar-Ulloa Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jayson Quillao Bautista Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marissa Louise Frese Represented By Timothy McFarlin
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Frances Verdugo Represented By Raymond J Bulaon
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Sherry Joniff Solomon Represented By Elena Steers
Joint Debtor(s):
Dana Solomon Represented By Elena Steers
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 11
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Mark Hamid Butler Represented By David H Chung
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lisa Diane Joy Represented By David H Chung
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lisa Diane Joy Represented By David H Chung
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Esteban Vasquez Represented By Heather J Canning
Joint Debtor(s):
Lisa Marie Vasquez Represented By Heather J Canning
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lori Praver Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Reyna DeLosAngeles Represented By Allan D Sarver
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Rita Lorrian Oso Represented By Marc Weitz
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gregory M. Mendoza Represented By
R Grace Rodriguez
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Silvia Raquel Blanco Represented By Miguel A Munoz
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 519
- NONE LISTED -
Final Ruling from January 12, 2021:
Court rejected claimants' argument that damages arising from the debtor's abandonment of the lease, as represented by the state court judgment, are not capped by 502(b)(6). Judge Neiter calculated the maximum amount of damage for lease termination damages under section 502(b)(6) and this amount will not increase because the state court judgment came out higher. There is nothing to litigate on these issues. Judge Neiter's order capping the damages at $1,066,000 remains the law of the case.
Judge Neiter did not enter an order that was intended to be final on the issue of the extent to which the legal fees should be included within the cap (i.e., the 90/10 split). Give parties an opportunity to conduct discovery before court conducts an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
State court's decision to make an award of fees and costs jointly and severally in favor of Melrose and Simantob does not make the cap of section 502(b)(6) inapplicable. With regard to both claimants, court will need to determine extent to which fees relate to litigation over lease termination damages (and are therefore within cap) and extent to which fees relate to other disputes (and are therefore not capped).
Court set a discovery cutoff of May 28, 2021 with regard to the attorneys' fees and costs component of the claim.
10:00 AM
Court ordered parties to brief whether or not cap of section 502(b)(6) would still apply to the claim if claimant asserts that it was defrauded into entering into the lease and whether the determination made by the state court that claimant's fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitation should be given preclusive effect in this contested matter. Court instructed parties to file simultaneous briefs on these issues not later than February 3, 2021 and instructed them to file reply briefs not later than February 16, 2021. Court set a continued hearing for February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
The fraud claim that Melrose seeks to assert is that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease. Its damage claims therefore remain subject to the 502(b)(6) cap. The additional tort theory of recovery does not change the amount of the damage that may be allowed as against the estate. (See tentative ruling for matter no. 103 as to whether a claim in excess of this amount may be asserted against the debtors on the theory that it is nondischargeable.)
Therefore, the only remaining issues to be resolved in the context of this claim objection are the allocation of attorneys' fees as between the capped and uncapped portion of the claim and the interest accrual calculation (and whether interest can accrue from and after November 21, 2013 on fees that were incurred after this date or whether interest should start to accrue on the later of November 21, 2013 and the date on which the relevant fees were incurred or awarded).
The portion of the fees attribuable to litigation over lease termination damages is within the cap (and therefore will not be allowed). The portion that is attributable to something other than litigation over the lease termination damages is not within the cap and may therefore be allowed.
Discuss with the parties how to move forward with the resolution of these issues. (Court has already set discovery cutoff of May 28, 2021 with regard to attorneys' fee issues.)
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
10:00 AM
Sustain debtor's evidentiary objections to exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the claimant's request for judicial notice to the extent that claimant seeks to introduce these documents to prove the truth of the contents of the documents. In response to a request for judicial notice (or even sua sponte), court can take judicial notice of the fact that a document was filed. Court can also take judicial notice of admissions made by a party in prior filings with the court, but that is different from admitting the documents to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein.
Parties agree that the relevant interest rate is 5 percent, as that is what the plan provided. With regard to the dates on which interest began to accrue on the attorneys' fees awarded, under Lucky United Properties Investment Inc. v. Lee, 213 Cal. App. 4th (2013), post judgment interest on a fee award runs from the date the amount of the fee award is fixed, not from the date of the original judgment. Therefore, interest on the amounts awarded for fees incurred at trial begins to accrue on the date the trial fees order was entered (June 14, 2018) and interest on the amounts awarded for fees incurred in connection with the appeal begins to accrue on the date the appellate fees were awarded (November 12, 2020). Sustain objection to the extent that claimant seeks to bar claimant from recovering interest on its attorneys' fees for any period prior to these dates.
Are parties on track to complete discovery re allocation issues by May 28, 2021? If not, when will the parties be in a position to schedule an evidentiary hearing to resolve allocation issues?
6/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing evidentiary hearing to August 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (See order for revised briefing dates.)
Debtor(s):
Ramesh Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
10:00 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
Movant(s):
Jack Simantob, 8451 Melrose Represented By Dean G Rallis Jr Kyra E Andrassy Lewis R Landau
Trustee(s):
Thomas C Hebrank (TR) Represented By
J. Barrett Marum Robert K Sahyan Aaron J Malo
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:12-01538 8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad
U.S.C. Sections 523(a)(2)(A) & (B) and 523(a)(6) Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))
fr. 11-18-20, 1-12-21, 2-24-21, 5-25-21
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
12/22/20 -- Court approved stipulation confirming that nothing precludes claimants from liquidating the amount of their claim in state court.
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021 (to the extent applicable to adversary proceeding):
The fraud claim that Melrose seeks to assert is that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease. Its damage claims therefore remain subject to the 502(b)(6) cap. If Melrose can demonstrate that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease (if this claim is not barred by any applicable statute of limitations), the capped claim would become nondischargeable, but the amount of the claim would remain capped to the same extent as its breach of lease claim. The additional tort theory of recovery does not change the amount of the damage. If the capped claim has already been or will be paid in full, there is no need to determine whether or not the claim should be excepted from the discharge.
The court recently approved a stipulation between the parties. Is it their intention to resolve the extent to which a fraud claim is or is not barred by the statute of limitations in state court? Similarly, is it the parties' intention to
10:00 AM
litigate the malicious prosecution claims in state court?
Final Ruling for January 12, 2021 (insofar as it relates to adversary proceeding):
Before it can determine how to adjudicate this adversary proceeding, court needs to resolve the following issues: (1) whether the cap of 502(b)(6) applies to any nondischargeable liability that the debtors may have for fraud in the inducement; and (2) whether the state court's finding that the plaintiff's fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitations should be given preclusive effect in this adversary proceeding.
Parties are to file simultaneous briefs with regard to these issues not later than February 2, 2021. Reply briefs will be due not later than February 16, 2021. Court will conduct a continued hearing on February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Adversary proceeding was never actually dismissed by Judge Neiter. He merely took the hearing off calendar to permit litigation to proceed in state court as between the parties, anticipating that they would return to bankruptcy court once they had reduced the claims to judgment for a determination as to dischargeability. That never happened, as Judge Neither retired and, there being no further hearings on calendar, the court "closed" the adversary proceeding. It was never dismissed. (This is why Judge Bluebond never takes a matter "off calendar" until it has been resolved--so that it will not fall through the cracks.)
This court is bound by the state court's determination as to when the statute of limitations began to run on the plaintiff's fraud claim. According to the state court, the statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff learned that the representations upon which it had relied were untrue, namely on October 22, 2010 when the debtor testified in a deposition that he did not own any property.
This adversary proceeding, including a claim for fraud in the inducement, was
10:00 AM
filed in a timely manner for nondischargeability purposes on April 2, 2012. The underlying state law statute of limitations had not run on the fraud claim as of that date. Conversely, in state court, the plaintiff attempted to add a fraud claim for the first time in is motion to amend complaint in August of 2014. The state court found that the three year statute of limitations had run on October 22, 2013. As this adversary proceeding, including the fraud claims, had been filed by then, there is no statute of limitations problem with this action.
The only authority this Court has been able to locate so far on the issue of whether or not the cap of section 502(b)(6) applies with regard to a nondischargeable claim that may be asserted as against the debtors, as distinguished from a claim that may be asserted against the debtors' estate, is a comment in dicta in a concurrence by former bankruptcy judge Bruce Markell. According to Judge Markell, "claims by landlords for fraud in procuring a lease would be limited by § 502(b)(6)'s limitation on landlords' claims against the estate, with amounts in excess of the limitations being valid against the debtor but unnecessary to the administration of the bankruptcy case.” Deitz v. Ford (In re Deitz), 469 B.R. 11, 29 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012).
The rationale behind limiting the amount of a damage claim for breach of lease (ensuring that the landlord's claim does not dwarf the claims of other creditors, entitling the landlord to a disproportionate share of available assets) does not apply in the context of a nondischargeability action as against the debtor, and section 502(b)(6) appears in a section of the code that discusses allowance of claims against the estate, not in section 523 as a limitation on a debtor's nondischargeable liability. Moreover, the introductory language of section 523 says that a discharge does not discharge an individual debtor "from any debt," not from liability for any allowed claim. There is nothing in the statutory language to suggest that any of the limitations of section 502 on the claims that may be allowed affect the amount of any debt that may be excepted from discharge under section 523.
Therefore, in the absence of authority to the contrary, this Court is inclined to agree with Judge Markell that the cap of 502(b)(6) should not apply to limit the size of a claim that can be asserted as against the debtors outside of the administration of the bankruptcy case. As a result, even if the entirety of the
10:00 AM
plaintiff's allowed claims as against the estate are paid in full, this action is not moot in that the debtors have potential exposure for liability in excess of these amounts, provided an appropriate showing can be made under section 523(a).
The state court judgment determines the amount of the lender's damages, but does not have any bearing on whether or not these amounts can be excepted from the discharge. Set discovery cutoff and schedule continued status conference for approximately 90 days. Explore with parties whether this is an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation at this juncture. (Discuss other issues/problems the court has observed with plaitiff's theories of recovery.)
Final Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Tentative ruling became final ruling: (1) 502(b)(6) cap does not limit amount of nondischargeable liability; (2) there is no statute of limitations problem: this action was filed before the applicable statute of limitations ran; (3) plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to prove that the amount of the state court judgment should be treated as nondischargeable, but it cannot increase the amount of that judgment or add a claim for punitive damages.
Continue status conference to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file an updated status report by May 11, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Set discovery cutoff for late 2021. Discuss with parties why they don't want this matter sent to mediation.
6/1/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting discovery cutoff for December 17, 2021. Status conference continued to July 20, 2021 at 10:00
a.m. to coincide with evidentiary hearing. Joint status report due July 6, 2021.
6/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing evidentiary hearing to August 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Continue status conference in adversary proceeding to same date and time. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 20, 2021.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Ramesh Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
Defendant(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By
John-patrick M Fritz David L. Neale Richard P Steelman Jr
Joint Debtor(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
Plaintiff(s):
8451 Melrose Property, LLC Represented By Jeffrey I Golden Beth Gaschen Kyra E Andrassy
Michael A. Taitelman Lewis R Landau
Trustee(s):
Thomas C Hebrank (TR) Represented By
J. Barrett Marum Robert K Sahyan Aaron J Malo
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
[OST]
Docket 295
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/15/21 - Marsha A. Houston, (213) 457-8000 7/15/21 - Christopher O. Rivas, (213) 457-8000 7/19/21 - Steven Berman, (813)227-2332
7/19/2 1- Evan Smith, (951)894-7332
7/20/21 - Alan Tippie, 213)626-2311 7/202/1 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311 7/20/21 - Michael Gray, (562)594-3911
7/202/1 - Edward Hays, (949)413-7223 7/20/21 - Ferdinand Trampe, (562)594-3911
7/20/21 - Thomas Polis, (949)862-0040
Court agrees that the parties' agreement should not be read or effectuated in such a way as to undermine or permit avoidance of rights granted to the receiver. Provided parties are able to negotiate appropriate modifications to avoid these concerns, grant motion and approve agreement.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
Operate Debtor's Business on an Interim Basis
Employ a Field Agent
[OST]
Docket 72
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/20/21 - Carolyn Djang, (949)263-6586
7/20/21 - Najah Shariff, (213)894-2534
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Community Therapies Represented By John D Faucher
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: CITY OF BEAUMONT
Docket 928
5/27/21 - Notice of New hearing date filed by Movant, approved by court. Hearing advanced to JUNE 23, 2021 @ 11AM.
OFF CALENDAR. HEARING ADVANCED TO JUNE 23, 2021 AND RESOLVED.
Debtor(s):
The Preserve, LLC Represented By Jeffrey W Broker Richard A Harvey
Movant(s):
City Of Beaumont Represented By Marc A Levinson
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim
John J Menchaca (TR) Steven J. Katzman Matthew M Clarke Jeffrey W Broker
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
MOVANT: FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST
Docket 16
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Marjorie Johnson, (951)778-9878
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Agris Blaubuks Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura Blaubuka Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld
Movant(s):
Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By
Marjorie M Johnson
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS, INC. Fr. 7-6-21
Docket 31
- NONE LISTED -
6/21/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (See order for additional deadlines.) OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 6, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 27, 2021:
At request of parties, continue hearing to August 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. See parties' July 12, 2021 for additional dates. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021.
7/21/21 -- Court approved order continuing hearing to August 17, 2021 at 10:00 am
Debtor(s):
Hilmore LLC Represented By
Crystle Jane Lindsey Daniel J Weintraub
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Strategic Acquisitions, Inc. Represented By Harris L Cohen
10:00 AM
MOVANT: D.O. CAPITAL GROUP fr. 4-27-21
Docket 35
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/19/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)610-0000
If movant wants to file an adversary proceeding to have its debt excepted from the discharge under section 523(a)(2)(B) or to bar debtor's discharge under section 727(a)(4), it is free to do so, but the Court is not inclined to grant relief from the automatic stay on 523(a)(2)(B) or 727(a)(4) grounds. Similarly, if movant believes that debtor is ineligible for relief under subchapter V, it should object to the debtor's election to proceed under this chapter. This is not a basis for relief from the automatic stay.
Although "bad faith" can constitute cause for relief from stay, this does not appear to be a two-party dispute and filing bankruptcy on the eve of a foreclosure does not necessarily constitute a bad faith filing. Court is not yet persuaded that this is a bad faith filing or that reorganization within a reasonable period is unlikely.
As movant has not established a lack of adequate protection or other cause for relief from stay under section 362(d)(1) or that grounds exist for relief from stay under section 362(d)(2), deny motion without prejudice.
10:00 AM
7/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. See order for additional provisions. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Movant(s):
D.O. Capital Group Represented By Arnold L Graff
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
fr. 4-28-21
Docket 42
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/19/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)610-0000
Court is not yet prepared to conclude that the prospect of reorganization is unlikely. Continue hearing approximately 90 days to give debtor an opportunity to make progress and court an opportunity to evaluate the extent to which progress is made.
7/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. See order for additional provisions. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Movant(s):
D.O. Capital Group Represented By Arnold L Graff
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
fr. 4-21-21, 4-28-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/19/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)610-0000
Where is the case status report? Continue case status conference to April 28, 2021 at 10:00 a..m. to be heard concurrently with creditor's motion to dismiss. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 21, 2021. (Debtor should file required status report before that date. See docket no. 11.)
CONTINUE CASE STATUS CONFERENCE TO AUGUST 11, 2021 AT 11:00
A.M. TO BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY WITH OTHER MATTERS ON CALENDAR IN THE CASE AT THAT TIME. Off calendar for July 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
v. Doug Wall Construction, et al MOVANT: TANDEM WEST GLASS, INC. fr. 5-25-21, 6-8-21, 6-29-21, 7-13-21
Docket 181
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/19/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000 7/19/21 - Christopher Rivas, (213)457-8000 7/19/21 - Steven Berman, (813)227-2332
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Grant motion to the extent necessary to permit parties to litigate their disputes
10:00 AM
to a final judgment. Enforcement should remain stayed.
6/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 13, 2021:
Tentative ruling from June 29, 2021 remains unchanged.
7/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR J
JULY 13, 2021.
7/14/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Tandem West Glass, Inc. Represented By Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
MOVANT: AL MILLER & SONS ROOFING CO., INC. fr. 5-25-21, 6-8-21, 6-29-21, 7-13-21
Docket 180
- NONE LISTED -
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Grant motion to the extent necessary to permit parties to litigate their disputes to a final judgment. Enforcement should remain stayed.
6/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 13, 2021:
10:00 AM
Tentative ruling from June 29, 2021 remains unchanged.
7/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 13, 2021.
7/14/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Al Miller & Sons Roofing Co., Inc. Represented By
Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01183 DYE v. Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. et al
Docket 165
- NONE LISTED -
6/21/21 -- Court entered order continuing hearing to August 17, 2021 at 2:00 pm. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
Defendant(s):
Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
John Burgee Represented By
Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Robert Abramoff Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Movant(s):
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By Steven M Berman Stella A Havkin
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01139 Gonzalez v. Muziknewum Nevada Irrevocable Spendthrift Trust db
Docket 81
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Rosendo Gonzalez, (213)452-0070
In the District Court's March 19, 2021 judgment, it remanded this matter to bankruptcy court with the following instructions:
Because Article III precluded the bankruptcy court's default judgment and Defendant did not consent, the default judgment is vacated. On remand, the bankruptcy court should apply the Falk factors to determine whether entry of default should be set aside. If the bankruptcy court determines that entry of judgment should not be set aside, the bankruptcy court may entertain a renewed motion for default judgment.
However, unless Defendant subsequently consents, the bankruptcy court may not enter judgment and should proceed within the limits of its powers under 28 U.S.C. section 157(c)(1) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033. As the Supreme Court has explained, when the Bankruptcy Code authorizes powers inconsistent with Article III and the parties do not consent to judgment, "the proper course is to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law" which "[t]he district court will review . . . de novo and enter judgment." Arkinson, 573 U.S. at 31.
[The Falk factors, as identified by the district court, are whether the defendant's culpable conduct led to the default; whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and whether reopening the default judgment would prejudice the plaintiff.]
2:00 PM
Earlier in its decision, the district court rejected the bankruptcy court's conclusion that defendant was estopped to dispute that the address he used on his pleadings was an appropriate address for use for service of the complaint:
Because the relevant factors do not favor finding Defendant judicially estopped from raising his argument [that the nightclub address could not be used as a service address for him], and the bankruptcy court relied on this basis to reject Defendant's service argument . . . , the bankuptcy court's analysis of this argument did not support its decision to enter and uphold the default judgment. On remand, the bankruptcy court should consider whether Defendant was properly served under Fed. R. Bank. P. 7004(b)(1). Because the bankruptcy court did not consider the issue further, the record before this Court does not contain sufficient evidence or arguments to determine whether Defendant was properly served in the first instance. The Court leaves it to the bankruptcy court on remand to determine whether an evidentiary hearing must be held or whether some other legal basis exists for rejecting Defendant's service argument.
Therefore, at this juncture, in order to figure out where to go from here, the court needs to know, first, whether the trustee plans to reserve the complaint or whether the trustee would like to rely on the original argument that the complaint was properly served. If the former, the court should set a deadline for the trustee to obtain a replacement summons. If the latter, the court will set a briefing schedule and a new hearing on whether service on the defendant at the nightclub address was valid. The court will determine at that hearing whether the court will need to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve this issue.
Debtor(s):
Jose Antonio Zamora Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Muziknewum Nevada Irrevocable Pro Se
2:00 PM
Joint Debtor(s):
Martha Delia Zamora Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez Represented By Rosendo Gonzalez
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By Rosendo Gonzalez
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01177 Acra Machinery, Inc., a California corporation et v. Avakian
fr. 8-27-19, 12-3-19, 3-10-20, 6-16-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20, 1-5-21, 3-2-21,
3-31-21, 4-27-21, 5-25-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Marshall Brubacher, (909)308-2486
Continue status conference for approximately 90 days and order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
12/27/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Final Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Continue status conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file joint status report not later than February 25, 2020. Parties should lodge an order appointing mediators not later than December 24, 2020 and should complete a day of mediation not later than March 10, 2020. Plaintiff should lodge scheduling order.
Tentative Ruling for March 10, 2020:
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for plaintiff for failing to lodge scheduling order. Impose sanctions of $150 each on counsel for parties for failing to file joint status report in a timely manner.
2:00 PM
Did the parties complete a day of mediation as previously ordered by the Court? If not, why not?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Continue status conference approximately 90 days. Order parties to complete a day of mediation prior to date of continued status conference.
7/7/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
7/10/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- July 7, 2020 L/D to complete mediation -- September 15, 2020
Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Why didn't the parties complete mediation by the deadline that the court established for this purpose? Hearing required.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to complete mediation to October 5, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
What is the status of this matter? Did the parties in fact participate in a mediation by the deadline established by the court for this purpose? Hearing required.
11/3/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- January 5, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- December 22, 2020
2:00 PM
L/D to complete discovery -- December 21, 2020
12/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to February 21, 2021
Status conference continued to March 2, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to January 19, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 5, 2021
2/19/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Discovery cutoff extended to March 22, 2021
Status conference continued to March 30, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file status report extended to March 16, 2021
OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021
Tentative Ruling for March 30, 2021:
Have the parties now completed discovery? Does either party anticipate filing any pretrial motions? Hearing required.
3/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation extending discovery cutoff to April 19, 2021 and continuing status conference to Apri 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2021:
Where is status report that should have been filed by April 13, 2021? Hearing required.
4/27/21 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to complete discovery -- May 19, 2021
2:00 PM
L/D to file joint status report -- May 11, 2021 OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Have the parties now completed discovery? If so, set deadline for filing of pretrial motions and date for pretrial conference.
5/28/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- July 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- July 13, 2021
L/D to file pretrial motions -- June 29, 2021
L/D to have pretrial motions heard -- July 27, 2021
Tentative Ruling for July 27, 2021:
Where is the joint status report that should have been filed by July 13, 2021? It does not appear that parties have filed any pretrial motions. Is there any reason that the court should not schedule a pretrial conference? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Defendant(s):
Sergik Avakian Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Plaintiff(s):
ACRA SEIKI, Inc., a California Represented By Marshall L Brubacher Matthew D. Resnik
Acra Machinery, Inc., a California Represented By
Marshall L Brubacher
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Matthew D. Resnik
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01095 Cipes v. Gendel
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Andrew Haley, (310)656-7210
Where is the joint status report that should have been filed July 13, 2021. Does defendant intend to defend herself in this action? If so, explain that she will be required to be familiar with and to comply with the court's local rules for the conduct of adversary proceedings. (Explain also that most of the affirmative defenses asserted in the answer to complaint have no place in a litigation of this kind.) Is this an appropriate matter to be sent to an early mediation?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Tami Monica Gendel Represented By David H Chung
Defendant(s):
Tami Monica Gendel Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Gregory Cipes Represented By Andrew Haley
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01071 Lee et al v. Tash et al
fr. 6-29-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Kenneth Catanzarite, (714)678-2100
Plaintiff obtained a replacement summons on May 15, 2021. Was that summons served in a timely manner? If not, why not? Hearing required.
6/24/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to July 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 29, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 27, 2021:
Court could continue hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss underlying bankruptcy case (as this action will become moot if the case is dismissed), but parties have also requested that this matter be sent to mediation and status report does not request a further continuance. Do the parties want to be ordered to mediation now or should the court continue the status conference to coincide with the hearing on the motion to dismiss?
2:00 PM
At request of parties, continue hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Defendant(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Pro Se
Raymond M. Tash, D.D.S., A Represented By Summer M Shaw
Plaintiff(s):
Sung Y. Lee Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Sung Y. Lee DMD, Inc. Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01073 Lee, DDS et al v. Tash et al
fr. 6-29-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Kenneth Catanzarite, (714)678-2100
Court could continue hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss underlying bankruptcy case, but parties have also requested that this matter be sent to mediation and status report does not request a further continuance. And this action will not be moot even if the case is dismissed, as this is the lawsuit that was removed from state court. Do the parties want to be ordered to mediation now or should the court continue the status conference to coincide with the hearing on the motion to dismiss?
At request of parties, continue hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Defendant(s):
Raymond Madijidian Tash Represented By
2:00 PM
Paul S Marks Yuriko M Shikai
Raymond M. Tash, D.D.S. a Represented By Paul S Marks Yuriko M Shikai Summer M Shaw
Plaintiff(s):
Sung Y. Lee DMD, Inc. Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Sung Young Lee, DDS Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
U.S.C. § 1112(b) FR. 7-14-21
Docket 163
6/29/21 - Notice to pay Court costs in the amount of $350.00 was sent to Leslie Cohen, Debtor's Counsel and must be paid prior to this hearing.
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 7/26/21 - Abraham Assil
7/26/21 - George Eshaghian
7/27/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
7/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
7/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 28, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Knotting Hill, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
S Double, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
Sefox Investment, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
IJ Properties LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
El Marino, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
10:00 AM
Docket 176
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 7/26/21 - Abraham Assil
7/26/21 - George Eshaghian
7/27/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 7/27/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Grant motion. Approve compromise.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Movant(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
fr. 7-7-21
Docket 152
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 7/26/21 - Abraham Assil
7/26/21 - George Eshaghian
7/27/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 7/27/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Tentative Ruling for July 7, 2021:
Pursuant to the proposed compromise, the debtor plans to relinquish its 59.933 percent interest in Canico in exchange for a payment of $75,000 and releases for itself and its principal, Mike Galam. The objecting creditors assert secured liens against the debtor's interest in Canico. The motion contains no evidence or authority for the proposition that it is permissible for the debtor to dispose of an asset in which the secured creditors have interests over their objection. How is this any different from a sale of this asset under section 363? Therefore, the debtor should be required to demonstrate that one of the prongs of section 363(f) has been satisfied before the compromise could be approved.
10:00 AM
Moreover, what consideration is Mike Galam providing in exchange for the releases that he is obtaining? Yes, he has an equity interest in the debtor, but there is no showing in the motion that this interest is actually worth anything. Moreover, this debtor in possession has a history of acting contrary to the interests of its bankruptcy estate. How can the court rely on the business judgment of such a debtor to make the findings necessary to approve this compromise? Perhaps the court should appoint a trustee so that it will have the benefit of input from a reliable fiduciary as to the bona fides of the compromise.
Deny motion for approval of compromise.
Final Ruling for July 7, 2021:
Debtor reports that it has negotiated a compromise with objecting parties, pursuant to which objection will be withdrawn if settlement is approved and payment is made. Over Canico's objection, court continued hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with motion for approval of compromise with objecting party.
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
If all objections are withdrawn, grant motion and approve compromise.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Movant(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
Claim No. Claimant:
Bruce Cardenas $70,000.00
Craig Franze $100,000.00
3.3 Donald Dean $610,000.00
Galam Family Irrevocable Trust $1,860,000.00
Jeff Malinovitz $500,000.00
Quality Property Trust $1,500,000.00.
FR. 6-9-21, 6-16-21, 7-7-21
Docket 134
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 7/26/21 - Abraham Assil
7/26/21 - George Eshaghian
7/27/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 7/27/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
10:00 AM
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
This is a chapter 11 case. The debtor in possession has a duty to examine and challenge claims that are unenforceable. Here, instead, the debtor is defending the claims. Continue hearing to give creditors a further opportunity to defend their claims. Notice served upon them should advise that, if they do not choose to do so, the objections will be sustained. Court notes that Canico's statute of limitations argument does not apply to claims evidenced by written promissory notes -- Franze, Cardenas and Malinovitz (if a written promissory note can be located for Malinovitz).
Tentative Ruling for July 7, 2021:
Tentative ruling from June 16, 2021 remains unchanged. (It does not appear from the docket that a supplemental notice of the kind referenced in the court's June 16, 2021 tentative ruling was ever served.)
Final Ruling for July 7, 2021:
Canico will serve supplemental notice. Continue hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
Claimants have been served with supplemental notice and have not opposed the claim objections. If court approves compromise with Canico and parties still want to proceed with claim objections, sustain objections and disallow claims in their entirety.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
Dismissing Bankruptcy Case Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B)(1), or, in the Alternative,
Granting Relief from the Automatic Stay fr. 3-17-21, 4-21-21, 6-9-21, 6-16-21, 7-7-21
Docket 82
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 7/26/21 - Abraham Assil
7/26/21 - George Eshaghian
7/27/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 7/27/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Final Ruling from March 17, 2021:
Continue hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with hearing on debtor's disclosure statement. The court will have a better opportunity to examine whether the debtor is acting in good faith and proceeding diligently with a reorganization of its affairs in the context of evaluating its proposed plan and disclosure statement. No new briefing on this motion will be permitted. Additional briefing as to whether there is a
10:00 AM
reasonable likelihood of reorganization within a reasonable period should come in the context of the hearing on the debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Having reviewed and analyzed the debtor's proposed plan, the court is left with the distinct impression that, with limited exception, this case is a two- party dispute and that the purpose of the bankruptcy filing was for the debtor to obtain a more favorable forum for the litigation of any remaining disputes with Canico. Grant motion to dismiss as a bad faith filing.
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Parties reported that a settlement has been reached. What is the nature of the agreement? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 7, 2021:
Would Canico and the debtor be entitled to enter into the proposed compromise if this case weren't in bankruptcy? If so, perhaps the motion should be granted and the case dismissed. Discuss with the parties the remedies that would be available to other secured creditors if the case were dismissed. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
If court approves compromises, should this motion be granted? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Nathan D Meyer
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
10:00 AM
Docket 1
6/29/21 - Notice to pay Court costs in the amount of $350.00 was sent to Leslie Cohen, Debtor's Counsel and must be paid prior to this hearing.
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Daniel McCarthy, (213)621-0802 7/26/21 - Abraham Assil
7/26/21 - George Eshaghian
7/27/21 - Ori Blumenfeld, (818)705-2777 7/27/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Set deadline for serving notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
10/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 7, 2020
Bar date -- December 7, 2020
L/D to file updated status report -- December 28, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
10:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by December 28, 2020? Hearing required.
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has received status report filed December 29, 2020. Other than submitting to a 2004 examination and serving a notice of bar date, what if any steps toward reorganization have been accomplished since the last status conference and what has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to propose a plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with hearing on creditor's motion to dismiss or in the alternative relief from stay. Waive requirement that new status report be filed for this continued conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 3, 2021:
Creditor noticed hearing on motion to dismiss or in the alternative for relief from stay for March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m Continue case status conference to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with that hearing. No new status report required. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 3, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Continue case status conference to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to approve debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
10:00 AM
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
fr. 2-24-21, 3-17-21, 4-21-21, 6-16-21
Docket 165
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
7/27/21 - Zev Schectman, (310)903-6344
7/27/21 - Haleh C. Naimi, (310)734-2677
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
2/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
3/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
At debtors' request, continue hearing on motion to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
6/11/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 16, 2021. (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL TERMS.)
10:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
Call matters nos. 3, 3.10, 3.20 and 3.30 first. If court authorizes maintenance of cash management system on a final basis with regard to AVR California and AVR Vanpool and authorizes the dismissal of AVR Georgia, AVR Nevada and AVR Texas on the ground that they have no assets, no employees, no operating business and no income, would any reason remain for the remaining debtors to prosecute this motion? It would serve only to bring the dismissed entities back into bankruptcy for the purpose of permitting any liabilities of these entities not already assumed by the remaining debtors to become claims against this bankruptcy estate. Do the equities of the circumstances require this result?
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
10:00 AM
fr. 12-17-20, 2-10-21, 3-17-21, 4-21-21, 6-16-21
Docket 9
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
7/27/21 - Zev Schectman, (310)903-6344
7/27/21 - Haleh C. Naimi, (310)734-2677
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Why does the Bank of the West payroll account need to remain open?
Debtor needs to stop payment on any outstanding checks issued on accounts that remain open. To the extent that the Court authorizes the payment of prepetition amounts, new checks should be issued.
Merchant accounts should remain open for deposits only. Only disbursements the debtor should make from these accounts is to sweep amounts on deposit (net of any required reserves) to a DIP account.
There is a difference between the debtors' depositing all of their funds into, and paying all of their expenses from, a single concentration account and pooling funds in such a way as to permit receipts generated by one debtor to be used to pay expenses attributable to a different debtor. Absent substantive consolidation or an order approving a financing motion as between two or more debtor entities, one debtor's expenses should not be paid from
10:00 AM
revenues generated by a different debtor.
Subject to the foregoing, provided debtor supplies adequate proof of service, grant motion.
Final Ruling for December 17, 2020:
Court granted motion on interim basis through February 12, 2021. Final hearing set for February 10, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. (See interim order for more information.)
Tentative Ruling for February 10, 2021:
Resolve motion on the following terms to which the debtors and the US Trustee have stipulated:
If the substantive consolidation motion currently set for hearing on February 24, 2021 is denied: (A) the Debtors will wind down their cash management system within 30 days after entry of the order denying the substantive consolidation motion; and (B) the authority to use the Debtors’ Cash Management System should be extended to 30 days after entry of such order.
On or before February 8, 2021, the Debtors will amend the December MOR to include "to/from" accounting. Thereafter, the Debtors will provide "to/from" accounting in all MORs until the first month after the Court enters an order granting substantive consolidation.
The Debtors will continue to maintain its single non-DIP Comerica bank account, to be used solely to pay the Debtors’ credit cards as authorized by the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order. The Debtors will not carry on deposit at any given time more than
$100,000 in the non-DIP Comerica bank account. If the Debtors’ balance on deposit in the non-DIP Comerica account exceeds the FDIC limit of $250,000 at any given time, the Debtors will obtain a surety bond in favor of the United States to collateralize any excess over the FDIC limit in an amount no less than 115%, based on the highest average daily balance. The Debtors will close the Prepetition Merchant Accounts and Prepetition
10:00 AM
Payroll Account, as those terms are defined in the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order, in a manner consistent with the Court’s Interim Cash Management Order.
3/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
As to AVR California and AVR Vanpool only, grant motion on a final basis.
As to AVR Georgia, AVR Nevada and AVR Texas, grant motion on an interim basis through and including June 18, 2021 and continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
6/11/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 16, 2021. (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL TERMS.)
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
Tentative ruling from April 21, 2021 remains unchanged.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
10:00 AM
Docket 15
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
7/27/21 - Zev Schectman, (310)903-6344
7/27/21 - Haleh C. Naimi, (310)734-2677
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Grant motion. Dismiss case.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a Georgia Represented By
Zev Shechtman Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a Georgia Represented By
Zev Shechtman Michael G D'Alba
10:00 AM
Docket 16
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
7/27/21 - Zev Schectman, (310)903-6344
7/27/21 - Haleh C. Naimi, (310)734-2677
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Grant motion. Dismiss case.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a Nevada Represented By
Zev Shechtman Michael G D'Alba
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a Nevada Represented By
Zev Shechtman Michael G D'Alba
10:00 AM
Docket 19
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
7/27/21 - Zev Schectman, (310)903-6344
7/27/21 - Haleh C. Naimi, (310)734-2677
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Grant motion. Dismiss case.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, LLP., a Texas Represented By
Zev Shechtman Michael G D'Alba Lydia A Hewett
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, LLP., a Texas Represented By
Zev Shechtman Michael G D'Alba Lydia A Hewett
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Roye Zur, (310)746-4495
7/27/21 - Zev Schectman, (310)903-6344
7/27/21 - Haleh C. Naimi, (310)734-2677
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
12/17/20 -- At hearing held this date, Court advised parties that this status conference would be called at 11:00 a.m. instead of 10:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 27, 2021:
Set deadline for service of notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
2/1/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: Cont'd status conference -- April 7, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
L/D to serve notice of bar date -- February 1, 2021 Bar date -- March 19, 2021
L/D to file updated status report -- March 26, 2021
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to April 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021.
10:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
(Debtors need not continue answering the same questions in subsequent status reports. Debtors should include in its status report a general discussion of the status of the case and the debtors' efforts to reorganize their affairs.)
Now that a number of states have lifted or reduced restrictions and travel is increasing, has the debtors' business been improving? When are the debtors' projecting that their busines will have "normalized"? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 14, 2021:
Court has reviewed debtor in possession's status report. Continue case status conference (as a holding date) to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters on calendar for that date. No new status report required for July 28 hearing. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 14, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
10:00 AM
fr. 3-10-21, 4-7-21, 5-5-21, 7-7-21
Docket 42
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/19/21 - Steven Berman, (813)227-2332
Tentative Ruling from March 10, 2021:
It is not the case that appointment of a trustee moots this motion. Debtor only owns a portion of the title to the affected real property as a tenant in common. There are three other owners who are not in bankruptcy. The receiver was not appointed for the debtor. The receiver was appointed to take charge of the property. It makes no sense to have the receiver controlling three of the undivided interests in the property and the debtor's trustee controlling the other. If there are concerns about the choice of Mr. Leslie as the receiver, the court will grant relief from stay to permit the trustee that the court will appoint in response to the motion on calendar as number 4 to litigate those concerns on behalf of the debtor, should he or she elect to do so.
Final Ruling from March 10, 2021:
Court appointed trustee in response to related motion. Court continued hearing on this motion to April 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give the trustee an opportunity to consider his/her position with regard to this motion. Order continuing hearing should clarify that receiver may remain in possession pending outcome of the hearing on this motion.
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 5, 2021 at
10:00 AM
10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Trustee requests a continuance to July 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and that the status quo be maintained in the interim. Grant trustee's request. Continue hearing to July 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Authorize receiver to remain in possession in the interim. (Counsel for receiver should lodge order to this effect.)
Movant objects and claims that the trustee should abandon the estate's interest in the real property. But that is not the relief requested by this motion. If the movant would like the trustee to abandon the property and the trustee is not willing to do so, the lender should bring a motion to compel abandonment. The granting of a motion to permit the lender to remain in possession would not amount to the abandonment of the estate's interest in the property, nor would it result in termination of the automatic stay. It would simply permit the receiver to remain as the custodian of the property while the trustee continues to administer the estate.
NOTE: Movant complains that the co-tenants are demanding concessions in exchange for their willingness to convey their interests to the estate, but what obligation do they have to convey these interests to the estate? The trustee could no doubt file an adversary proceeding under section 363(h), but that would entail expense and delay.
6/28/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and excusing receiver from turnover in the interim. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 7, 2021.
7/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and excusing receiver from turnover in the interim. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 28, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Daniel J Weintraub Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III- Represented By
Marsha A Houston Christopher O Rivas
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
Continue status conference to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (same date and time as hearing on motion to excuse receiver) as a holding date. No new status report is required for that status conference. Appearances waived on July 7, 2021.
7/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 28, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/15/21 - Michael Berger, (310)271-6223 7/20/21 - Thomas Geher, (310)712-6820
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168 7/27/21 - Steven Berkowitz, (310)550-1220 7/27/21 - Richard Brunette, (213)617-4174
7/28/21 - Asa Hami, (213)617-5233
Is the Sarbonne Road property currently occupied by anyone? Did the debtor have the house constructed or remodeled? If so, when was the construction/remodeling completed? Did the debtor ever live in the property? If so, when did the debtor move out of the property?
Has there been any interest in the Sarbonne property? Are buyers touring the property? Status report states that property is listed at $80,000,000, but Compass website, Zillow, etc. lists the property for sale at $87,777.77. Why the difference?
Who is Allan Khadavi? Who is John Ebra?
Set bar date and deadline for serving notice of bar date.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Alex A. Khadavi Represented By Michael Jay Berger
10:00 AM
Docket 373
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - David Jacob, (213)293-5931
7/26/21 - Thomas Casey, (949)766-8787
What exactly is JWR requesting? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
fr. 6-9-21
Docket 356
- NONE LISTED -
An attorney for a creditor who makes a substantial contribution to a chapter 11 case pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(D) may recover reasonable compensation for professional services rendered as an administrative expense under section 503(b)(4). In re Mortgages Ltd., 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 5093, 2010 WL 6259981, at *7 (9th Cir. BAP Aug. 4, 2010). The principal test of substantial contribution is "the extent of benefit to the estate." In re Cellular 101, Inc., 377 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2004), citing In re Christian Life Ctr., 821 F.2d 1370, 1373 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Pierson & Gaylen v. Creel & Atwood (In re Consol. Bancshares, Inc.), 785 F.2d 1249, 1253 (5th Cir.
1986) (reaffirming that "services which substantially contribute to a case are those which foster and enhance, rather than retard or interrupt the progress o[f] reorganization"). As stated in In re Catalina Spa & R.V. Resort, Ltd., 97
B.R. 13, 21 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1989):
Compensation cannot be freely given to all creditors who take an active role in bankruptcy proceedings, rather, it must be preserved for those rare occasions when the creditor's involvement truly fosters and enhances the administration of the estate. The integrity of § 503(b) can only be maintained by strictly limiting compensation to extra ordinary [sic] creditor actions which lead directly to significant and tangible benefits to the creditors, debtor, [*9] or the estate. While § 503 was enacted to encourage meaningful creditor participation, it should not become a vehicle for reimbursing every creditor who elects to hire an attorney.
11:00 AM
In re PG&E Corp., No. 19-30088-DM, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 371, at *8-9 (Bankr.
N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2021).
None of the subsections of section 503(b) are applicable on the facts of this case. NVSI cannot recover for the costs of negotiating or drafting the sale agreement. This was never within the contemplation of the parties. The debtor did not obtain a sale procedures order authorizing a cost reimbursement to the stalking horse, and NVSI was not the stalking horse. Had the sale closed, or if NSVI had been outbid at a sale, it would not have been able to recover these costs.
The costs that NVSI incurred were not the actual and necessary costs of preserving the estate within the meaning of section 503(b)(1)(A). This fact pattern bears no resemblance to the instances in which fees and expenses have been awarded under this section. And 503(b)(3) does not provide a basis for allowance of the claim here in that it is far from clear that NVSI is a creditor within the meaning of that section and this is not a chapter 9 or chapter 11 case.
Moreover, the Court cannot find on these facts that NVSI provided a substantial contribution to this case. If NVSI had not entered into an agreement to purchase the property by September 25, 2020, the Court would have converted the case to chapter 7 at that time, and the chapter 7 trustee would not have been under the time crunch imposed by the court and NVSI's demands that it close the sale as expeditiously as possible. The court is not ready to conclude that no other alternative would have been available other than a foreclosure by Bobs. And, in any event, that contribution, if there was one, would have been made during the course of the resulting chapter 7 case, not in the chapter 11.
However, the more difficult question is whether there is a basis for the allowance of an expense of administration under the reasoning of Reading Co. v. Brown, 391 U.S. 471 (1968). In that case, the Supreme Court held that damages resulting from the negligence of a receiver acting within the scope of his authority as receiver give rise to actual and necessary costs of a chapter XI arrangement even when there was no actual benefit to the estate.
11:00 AM
In Reading, the negligence of the receiver and/or a workman retained by the receiver resulted in a fire at the debtor's real property that spread to surrounding properties, causing 146 separate fire damage claims.
Reading can be read to support the proposition that it is appropriate to grant administrative status to fees arising out of post-petition transactions or contracts with a debtor in possession or a trustee when wrongful conduct on the part of the debtor in possession or trustee injures third parties. However, if there is no wrongful conduct on the part of the trustee, courts are unlikely to allow an administrative claim. See, e.g., Total Minatome Corp. v. Jack/Wade Drilling, Inc. (In re Jack/Wade Drilling, Inc.), 258 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2001) (although the trustee's conduct in bringing a breach of contract action that he eventually lost caused a third party to incur expense, as the trustee's conduct was not wrongful, no fee award was appropriate).
So how does this reasoning apply here? Did the debtor engage in wrongful conduct during the course of administering the estate that led NVSI to incur fees and expenses? He made optimistic representations to the court and the parties that it was unlikely that there would be significant capital gains liability if the sale were consummated. He failed to perform under the contract, causing the court to convert the case as a means to put a trustee in place promptly so that the contract could be performed. But is there any legal theory under which NVSI would be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and expenses now that the orders approving the contract have been vacated?
Could NVSI establish damages for fraud? Did the debtor knowingly make a false representation about the likelihood that there would be capital gains liability? Is there a contractual theory of recovery for attorneys' fees under the now-unenforceable contract in light of the fact that NVSI did not ultimately become the prevailing party?
In all the cases in which the holding of the Reading case has been used to grant administrative status to a claim asserted against the estate, there was an underlying tort or contract theory that entitled the party asserting the claim to recover. The question was whether or not the claim asserted should be treated as an administrative claim. What is the nonbankruptcy theory of recovery here? In the absence of a workable theory of liability, the Court would not be inclined to extend the holding of Reading to cover this fact
11:00 AM
pattern.
Hearing required.
6/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED ON JULY 28, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
NVSI, INC., its successors and/or Represented By
Joshua L Scheer Timothy J Silverman
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
Set deadline for the debtor to file Rule 1003(b) statement. How much time do the parties need to conduct discovery in this matter? Hearing required.
7/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation entering order for relief and converting case to chapter 11. OFF CALENDAR. (CHAPTER 11 STATUS CONFERENCE SERT FOR AUGUST 18, 2021 AT 10:00 AM)
Debtor(s):
Advanced Environmental Group Represented By
Leslie A Cohen
Trustee(s):
CASE REOP/CONV/OR CLOSED Pro Se
11:00 AM
Docket 50
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/26/21 - Gregory Jones, (310)429-9581 7/27/21 - Richard Golubow, (949)720-4135 7/27/21 - Joseph Walsh, (562)317-3300
7/27/21 - Richard Munro, (949)910-6600 7/27/21 - Douglas Tabachnik (732)780-2760 7/27/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Rulings on Evidentiary Objections
Objections to Munro Declaration [Docket #51] from AEG Overrule general objections.
Overrule. Declarant has personal knowledge of what he did and what he produced after reviewing documents provided by the debtors.
Overrule as to first sentence. Sustain as to balance (lack of foundation).
Overrule as to first sentence (but court understands the testimony to mean that the bank statements provided only show receipts in these amounts). Sustain as to balance (lack of foundation).
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
11:00 AM
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Sustain. (Best evidence rule/lack of personal knowledge).
Overrule.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Sustain. (Hearsay, as it appears that these statements are being offered for the truth of the matters asserted.)
Sustain as to statements from insurance broker that premiums had finally been paid, as this appears to have been offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Sustain as to the absence of any lease payments based on lack of foundation. Overrule as to balance.
Objections to Munro Declaration [Docket #52] from ACTI Overrule general objections.
Overrule specific objections.
Tentative Ruling on the Merits
Pacific6 filed motion to appoint trustee on July 7, 2021. Debtor elected to convert to subchapter V on July 8, 2021. Court will therefore construe motion for the appointment of a trustee under section 1104 as a motion to remove the debtor as a debtor in possession under section 1185(a). Both sections permit the court to replace the debtor in possession with a trustee when, within the discretion of the court, there is cause to do so, which includes "fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor, either before or after the date of commencement of the case." Election of subchapter V does not moot the motion as the role of a subchapter V trustee is very different from that of a chapter 11 trustee in a non-subchapter V case.
AEG is only permitted to operate its business (operating an AMECS unit) when it is in compliance with conditions imposed by the California Air Resources Board Executive Order AB-15-02 (CARB EO). AEG is not in compliance, resulting in a cease-and-desist order on November 5, 2020, from CARB, which precludes it from operating legally. ACTI's license to conduct
11:00 AM
cleanup operations has been suspended by the California Contractor's State License board. So neither debtor is currently permitted to operate its business.
Debtor has asserted that it has made substantial progress toward having its ability to operate reinstated and has blamed many of its problems on Eleopoulos and former executives that tried to drive it out of business, but, according to the debtor's opposition, these individuals have been gone for years. Debtors have had time to remedy any problems allegedly created by these individuals, but has failed to do so.
Debtors claim to dispute that they owe various amounts to creditors, but the debtor cannot dispute that many monetary judgments have been entered against them. For ACTI, there are 19 judgment liens and six tax liens. AEG has 6 judgment liens against it.
Although it appears that the debtors have now paid for insurance to remain in effect, they cannot dispute that they failed to provide Pacific6 with proof of insurance in a timely manner. Moreover, their own bank records show limited receipts and suspicious transfers out of the company immediately upon receipt of PPP loan proceeds, and the multiple versions of creditor lists filed by the debtors do not provide any comfort as to the reliability of the debtor's records and/or the credibility of its principal. (Although AEG has interposed evidentiary objections to Munro's analysis of its bank statements, it admits that its only receipts during the period from February 1, 2021 through May 21, 2021 were $151,290.48 from LBCT and a PPP loan of $81,403. And the debtors themselves characterize the $151,000 from LBCT as "prepetiton advances," not earned income. See Opposition, p. 6 at line 24.)
Court agrees with movants that, at a minimum, these facts demonstrate ongoing gross mismanagement of the debtors and constitute cause to remove the debtors in possession in these subchapter V cases and direct the subchapter V trustee to assume the additional obligations identified in section 1183(b)(5). Grant motions.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Advanced Environmental Group Represented By
Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
Pacific6 Environmental, LLC Represented By Richard H Golubow
Trustee(s):
CASE REOP/CONV/OR CLOSED Pro Se
11:00 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
Set deadline for the debtor to file Rule 1003(b) statement. How much time do the parties need to conduct discovery in this matter? Hearing required.
7/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation entering order for relief and converting case to chapter 11.
Debtor(s):
Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Represented By
Leslie A Cohen
Trustee(s):
CASE REOP/CONV/OR CLOSED Pro Se
11:00 AM
Docket 50
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/27/21 - Richard Golubow, (949)720-4135 7/27/21 - Richard Munro, (949)910-6600
7/27/21 - Leslie Cohen, (310)394-5900
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
See tentative ruling for matter no. 101.10. Court has combined tentative rulings for two motions.
Debtor(s):
Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Represented By
Leslie A Cohen
Movant(s):
GOLO, LLC Represented By
Richard H Golubow
Trustee(s):
CASE REOP/CONV/OR CLOSED Pro Se
11:00 AM
fr. 8-12-15, 9-24-15, 1-6-16, 2-10-16, 3-16-16, 4-27-16, 9-7-16, 3-8-17,
12-12-17, 6-27-18, 12-12-18, 4-10-19, 10-9-19, 10-16-19, 11-20-19, 1-15-20,
3-11-20, 5-6-20, 8-12-20, 11-18-20, 3-17-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/22/21 - Diane Weifenbach, (714)695-6637
Did debtor ever serve the original order setting status conference? Did debtor ever file the initial status report? If not, why not? Hearing required.
10/1/15 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date --- September 25, 2015
Bar date -- November 30, 2015
L/D to file plan and disclosure statement -- November 30, 2015 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
Hearing on disclosure statement -- January 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2016:
Continue case status conference to date of continued hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2016:
11:00 AM
If Court confirms plan, set post-confirmation status conference and deadline for reorganized debtor to file status report accompanied by declaration.
Tentative Ruling for September 7, 2016:
According to status report, debtor is behind on payments to her professionals but hopes to catch up from a workers compensation award that she expects to receive. Professionals have not agreed to this payment plan, but do they anticipate taking any action in an effort to enforce their claims under the plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for September 7, 2017:
Continue hearing to March 8 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file and serve updated status report not later than February 24, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for March 8, 2017:
According to status report, debtor is current on the payments due both secured creditors and unsecured creditors under the plan and is only in default on payments due administrative claimants. Is this correct?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 13, 2017:
Is debtor now current on all plan payments? Post confirmation status report is not accompanied by a declaration and makes no mention of administrative claimants. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for June 27, 2018:
Continue hearing to December 12, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file and serve updated status report accompanied by debtor's declaration not later than November 30, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for December 12, 2018:
11:00 AM
How much does former counsel claim debtor owes for professional fees? Has debtor made any progress in resolving issues with Wells Fargo? Did debtor succeed in paying November payments to secured creditors and October payments to unsecured creditors? Is debtor now current on payments under the plan?
Tentative Ruling for April 9, 2019:
Has debtor now made any of the March payments due secured creditors or the February and March payments due unsecureds? When are the April payments due? What is the status of debtor's efforts to clarify amounts due Wells Fargo?
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for October 16, 2019:
The Court is confused by the entry on the debtor's report fro Wells Fargo (now Fay Servicing). Has the debtor paid the June 2019 payment? Has the debtor paid any of the payments due for August, September and October 2019 for this lender? The Court has the same questions with regard to the two Pennymac (now SN Servicing) unsecured claims.
Final Ruling for October 16, 2019:
Debtor owes plan payments for June, July, August, September and October. For Wells, she owes these payments plus April and May. Debtor is hoping to refinance, which should take 3 to 4 weeks. Continue case status conference to November 20, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by November 15, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for November 20, 2019:
Reorganized debtor is now saying that it will take another 2 to 3 weeks to arrange financing. Continue case status conference to January 15, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by January 3, 2020.
11:00 AM
Debtor has been in default under her plan for an extended period. This cannot continue. Court will convert or dismiss case on January 15 if debtor has not cured arrearages under her plan by then.
Tentative Ruling for January 15, 2020:
According to the reorganized debtor's status report, the replacement loan will fund on January 12 and reorganized debtor will be able to pay off all amounts due unsecured creditors under her plan and cure any delinquencies on her secured claims. Has this occurred? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for March 11, 2020:
Debtor has now obtained financing and cured arrearages under plan. Continue case status conference to May 6, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. to give debtor an opportunity to move for and obtain final decree. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 11, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for May 6, 2020:
Discuss with counsel debtor's game plan for dealing with various plan delinquencies and problems.
Final Ruling for May 6, 2020:
Continue status conference to August 12, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report by July 31, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for August 12, 2020:
Continue status conference to November 18, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report by November 6, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 12, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for November 18, 2020:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to
11:00 AM
March 17, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by March 5, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 18, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to July 28, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by July 16, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 17, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue status conference to December 1, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by November 19, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 28, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Ida Mae Woods Represented By Giovanni Orantes Luis A Solorzano
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
(Debtor filed status report late.) Set bar date and deadline for serving notice of bar date. When does debtor anticipate that it will be filing application to employ counsel and real estate broker? Hearing required.
5/7/21 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D for debtor to serve notice of bar date -- May 7, 2021
Bar date -- July 9, 2021
Cont'd status conference -- July 28, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. L/D to file updated status report -- July 16, 2021
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
Where is the updated status report that should have been filed by July 16, 2021? The debtor's only asset is 143 acres of vacant land in Tehachapi. Debtor's initial status report asserted that its intention was to sell the property in order to pay its creditors. Why hasn't the debtor filed a motion to employ a real estate broker? Has any progress been made in this case since it was filed on March 12, 2021?
Issue OSC why case should not be dismissed or converted.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Clifford Passage, LLC Represented By Matthew Abbasi
11:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/20/21 - Reginald Sainvil (305)789-8900 7/20/21 - Nicholas Kennedy (305)789-8900 7/26/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)371-7589 7/26/21 - Carollynn H.G. Callari (908)240-3964 7/26/21 - David Forsh, (917)282-0203
7/27/21 - Alexander Burch, (305)789-8900
7/27/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
There is no need for a continuance, discovery or an evidentiary hearing here. The operative facts are not in dispute.
Mr. Smagin is an individual citizen of the Russian Federation residing in Moscow and is a debtor in an insolvency proceeding pending in Moscow. In such proceedings, notice is provided to all known creditors. Creditors are permitted to submit claims and to participate in the process. Russian insolvency law provides for the disposition of Mr. Smagin's assets (excluding certain assets exempt under applicable law) and for the distribution of the resulting proceeds in accordance with the priority scheme established by Russian insolvency law.
Creditors participating in his insolvency proceeding did not accept Mr.
11:00 AM
Smagin's proposed restructing plan and therefore applied to the insolevency court in Moscow for the commencement of liquidation procedures. Mr.
Ratnikov was appointed as the trustee/liquidation officer to accomplish that liquidation. The debtor contends that there are nefarious goings on and that Mr. Ratnikov should be removed, but he has already presented these arguments to the court in Moscow and they have been rejected by that court. Although the debtor may have appealed one or more decisions of the Moscow court, no one contends that there is anything equivalent to a stay pending appeal of Mr. Ratnikov's appointment. Therefore, unless and until the Moscow insolvency court or a higher court with jurisdiction over the insolvency proceeding removes Mr. Ratnikov, he is the duly-authorized foreign representative in Mr. Smagin's insolvency proceeding.
Mr. Smagin's center of main interest is Russia, and Mr. Smagin's insolvency proceeding qualifies as a "collective" proceeding within the meaning of chapter 15. Therefore, his Russian insolvency proceeding constitutes a foreign main proceeding. This court need not assess whether the Russian insolvency proceeding is in fact turning out in such a way as to yield a benefit to the debtor's creditors in order to assess whether or not the proceeding qualifies as a collective proceeding. The process is structured in such a way as to create a collective remedy for Mr. Smagin's creditors. Whether this is a collective proceeding is a legal issue that can be resolved in the affirmative based on the undisputed testimony provided by applicant as to how a Russian insolvency proceeding works, not a factual one that requires discovery or an evidentiary hearing as the debtor contends.
Grant petition, along with the limited additional relief requested in the petition necessary to permit the foreign representative to administer the debtor's assets in the United States. If and when Mr. Smagin succeeds in having someone other than Mr. Ratnikov appointed as the trustee/liquidating officer in his insolvency proceeding, the court will modify the authority granted in this chapter 15 case accordingly. However, until that occurs, the relief requested by Mr. Ratnikov is wholly appropriate. The debtor has not even identified any facts or circumstances that would, if proven, be sufficient to suggest that there is any public policy reason why this court should substitute its own judgment for that of the insolvency court in Moscow as to the propriety of permitting Mr. Ratnikov to serve in this capacity. (Court notes that there is no
11:00 AM
requirement in chapter 15 that the foreign representative be "disinterested" or free from conflicts of interest. Whether or not Mr. Ratnikov is an appropriate representative is an issue for the Moscow insolvency court to decide, not this court.) And it would make no sense and serve no purpose whatsoever to recognize Mr. Ratnikov as the foreign representative but refuse to provide him with the authority and powers that he needs to take control over the debtor's assets within this jurisdiction.
Debtor(s):
Vitaly Ivanovich Smagin Represented By Hamid R Rafatjoo
Nicholas O Kennedy
2:00 PM
Docket 67
- NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Lennon and Wolfe, Inc. Represented By Steven L Bryson
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By Steven T Gubner Robyn B Sokol Jeffrey L Sumpter
2:00 PM
Docket 61
- NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Nathaniel Luis Anthony Fonnegra Represented By
Eric Bensamochan
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 162
- NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Gardena Business Group LLC Represented By
Richard L. Sturdevant
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Represented By Wesley H Avery
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Adv#: 6:19-01047 Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar, LLP et al v. Simons
Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar, LLP VS. Larry D. Simons (via Zoom)
Docket 0
- NONE LISTED -
(Court has circulated Zoom information.)
Take appearances on the record and then go off record to conduct mediation. Parties have circulated and signed court's form mediation confidentiality statement.
Debtor(s):
Maria Elena Rodriguez Represented By
Michael H Colmenares John P Kreis
Defendant(s):
Larry D Simons Represented By Daniel A Lev
Plaintiff(s):
Ford Walker Haggerty & Behar, LLP Represented By
Howard Steinberg
Timothy McDonald Represented By Howard Steinberg
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By
C John M Melissinos Daniel A Lev
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
VIN# 5NPD 74LF 4HH0 84942 .
MOVANT: KING OF CREDIT FINANCIAL, INC.
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearances by:
8/6/21 - Vincent Frounjian, (818)859-7511
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Angela Marie Marshall Represented By Daniel King
Movant(s):
KING OF CREDIT FINANCIAL, Represented By
Vincent V Frounjian
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# 1G1FF3D77H0211749 MOVANT: TD AUTO FINANCE, LLC.
Docket 11
ZoomGov Appearances by:
8/6/21 - Sheryl Ith, (714)431-1029
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Arutyun Tsavukyan Represented By Tyson Takeuchi
Movant(s):
TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/2/21 - Mark Bloom 8/2/21 - Nicholas Kennedy 8/2/21 - Reginal Sainvil
8/6/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)371-7589 8/6/21 - Carollynn H.G. Callari, (908)240-3964
8/6/21 - David Forsh, (917)282-0203
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
There is no need for a continuance, discovery or an evidentiary hearing here. The operative facts are not in dispute.
Mr. Smagin is an individual citizen of the Russian Federation residing in Moscow and is a debtor in an insolvency proceeding pending in Moscow. In such proceedings, notice is provided to all known creditors. Creditors are permitted to submit claims and to participate in the process. Russian insolvency law provides for the disposition of Mr. Smagin's assets (excluding certain assets exempt under applicable law) and for the distribution of the resulting proceeds in accordance with the priority scheme established by Russian insolvency law.
10:00 AM
Creditors participating in his insolvency proceeding did not accept Mr. Smagin's proposed restructing plan and therefore applied to the insolevency court in Moscow for the commencement of liquidation procedures. Mr.
Ratnikov was appointed as the trustee/liquidation officer to accomplish that liquidation. The debtor contends that there are nefarious goings on and that Mr. Ratnikov should be removed, but he has already presented these arguments to the court in Moscow and they have been rejected by that court. Although the debtor may have appealed one or more decisions of the Moscow court, no one contends that there is anything equivalent to a stay pending appeal of Mr. Ratnikov's appointment. Therefore, unless and until the Moscow insolvency court or a higher court with jurisdiction over the insolvency proceeding removes Mr. Ratnikov, he is the duly-authorized foreign representative in Mr. Smagin's insolvency proceeding.
Mr. Smagin's center of main interest is Russia, and Mr. Smagin's insolvency proceeding qualifies as a "collective" proceeding within the meaning of chapter 15. Therefore, his Russian insolvency proceeding constitutes a foreign main proceeding. This court need not assess whether the Russian insolvency proceeding is in fact turning out in such a way as to yield a benefit to the debtor's creditors in order to assess whether or not the proceeding qualifies as a collective proceeding. The process is structured in such a way as to create a collective remedy for Mr. Smagin's creditors. Whether this is a collective proceeding is a legal issue that can be resolved in the affirmative based on the undisputed testimony provided by applicant as to how a Russian insolvency proceeding works, not a factual one that requires discovery or an evidentiary hearing as the debtor contends.
Grant petition, along with the limited additional relief requested in the petition necessary to permit the foreign representative to administer the debtor's assets in the United States. If and when Mr. Smagin succeeds in having someone other than Mr. Ratnikov appointed as the trustee/liquidating officer in his insolvency proceeding, the court will modify the authority granted in this chapter 15 case accordingly. However, until that occurs, the relief requested by Mr. Ratnikov is wholly appropriate. The debtor has not even identified any facts or circumstances that would, if proven, be sufficient to suggest that there is any public policy reason why this court should substitute its own
10:00 AM
judgment for that of the insolvency court in Moscow as to the propriety of permitting Mr. Ratnikov to serve in this capacity. (Court notes that there is no requirement in chapter 15 that the foreign representative be "disinterested" or free from conflicts of interest. Whether or not Mr. Ratnikov is an appropriate representative is an issue for the Moscow insolvency court to decide, not this court.) And it would make no sense and serve no purpose whatsoever to recognize Mr. Ratnikov as the foreign representative but refuse to provide him with the authority and powers that he needs to take control over the debtor's assets within this jurisdiction.
Final Ruling for July 28, 2021:
Grant motion insofar as it requests recognition, but set continued hearing for August 10, 2021 at 10:00 am to discuss how to structure additional relief to be granted to ensure that lawsuits are prosecuted in a manner that protects interests of all parties concerned. Court advised that foreign representative will be required to comply with Bankruptcy Code sections 363 and 554 as well as FRBP 9019 with regard to disposition of lawsuits and that a disinterested party should be appointed to prosecute the action currently on appeal, as foreign representative is one of the defendants.
7/30/2021 -- Court signed order memorializing tentative ruling.
Tentative Ruling for August 10, 2021:
Has foreign representative prepared a proposed form of order? What progress has been made since 7/28/2021 hearing?
Debtor(s):
Vitaly Ivanovich Smagin Represented By Hamid R Rafatjoo
Nicholas O Kennedy
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01183 DYE v. Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. et al
fr. 8-27-19, 11-19-19, 12-17-19, 2-11-20; 6-30-20, 9-15-20, 10-13-20, 2-23-21,
4-27-21, 6-15-21
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
If defendants have filed motion to dismiss, continue status conference to date of hearing on motion as a holding date. If defendants have filed answer to complaint, both parties have indicated a willingness to attend mediation.
Discuss with parties the timing of mediation.
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2019:
Parties report that they have scheduled a mediation for December 2, 2019 with Meredith Jury. Continue status conference to December 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (Parties need not file a new status report prior to that status conference.) APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2019:
Did the parties participate in a mediation before Meredith Jury? If so, was a settlement reached? Hearing required.
2:00 PM
12/16/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 11, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 17, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for February 11, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for late July, 2020. Set final status conference for shortly before discovery cutoff.
4/22/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 30, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- June 16, 2020 Discovery cutoff -- July 31, 2020
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2020:
Continue status conference to August 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion for summary judgment. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2020.
6/30/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates: Discovery cutoff -- October 31, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2 L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to exchange expert witness reports/designate experts -- November 16, 2020
L/D to complete expert discovery -- December 1, 2020
8/12/20 -- At hearing held this datre, Court continued status conference and hearing on summary judgment motion to October 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 13, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 201.
2:00 PM
10/19/20 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Pretrial conference -- February 23, 2021 @ 2 L/D to copmlete discovery -- November 30, 2020
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- December 31, 2020 L/D to complete expert discovery -- January 31, 2021
L/D to lodge pretrial order -- Feburary 9, 2021 L/D to file pretrial motions -- December 31, 2020
11/18/20 -- Court signed stipulated order with following dates:
L/D to complete depositions of Burgee, Abramoff and Lanius extended to January 15, 2021;
L/D to file pretrial motions extended to January 31, 2021;
L/D for parties to designate experts and exchange expert witness reports extended to February 15, 2021; and
L/D for parties to complete expert witness discovery extended to March 12, 2021.
1/15/21-- Court approved stipulation continuing following dates:
L/D to complete depositions of Burgee and Lanius extended to January 29, 2021;
L/D to file pretrial motions extended to March 1, 2021;
L/D for parties to designate experts and exchange expert witness reports extended to March 15, 2021; and
L/D to complete expert witness discovery extended to April 9, 2021.
In light of the foregoing, court also continued pretrial conference to April 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties shall lodge joint pretrial order not later than April 13, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2021.
2/17/21-- Court approved stipulation continuing following dates:
L/D to file pretrial motions extended to April 19, 2021;
L/D for parties to designate experts and exchange expert witness reports extended to April 30, 2021; and
L/D to complete expert witness discovery extended to May 24, 2021.
2:00 PM
In light of the foregoing, court also continued pretrial conference to June 15, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties shall lodge joint pretrial order not later than June 1, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
3/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to August 10, 2021. L/D to file pretrial motions continued to June 1, 2021. L/D to designate experts and exchange experts reports continued to June 14, 2021. L/D to complete expert discovery continued to July 1, 2021. Parties shall lodge joint pretrial order not less than 14 days before continued pretrial conference date.
5/11/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadlines as follows: L/D to file pretrial motions -- June 14, 2021
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- June 28, 2021 L/D to complete expert discovery -- July 16, 2021
6/21/21 -- Court continued pretrial conference to September 14, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should lodge joint pretrial order not later than August 31, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 10, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
Defendant(s):
Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
John Burgee Represented By
Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin
2:00 PM
Steven M Berman
Robert Abramoff Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By Steven M Berman Stella A Havkin
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01177 Bradley, M.D. et al v. Dickens, III
fr. 10-20-20, 2-23-21, 6-1-21
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
Set deadline for defendant to file motion for summary judgment/partial summary adjudication. Continue status conference to date of hearing on that motion. Discuss with parties whether mediation would be helpful in this matter and, if so, when.
10/21/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for plaintiff to file motion for summary judgment and defendant to file motion for judgment on pleadings -- January 12, 2021
Deadlines for oppositions and replies shall be as set forth in the Local Rules (Court corrected order lodged by parties to reflect these deadlines)
Hearing on motions and continued status conference -- February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. (Requirement of filing a status report in connection with that conference is waived.)
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Do the parties need to conduct any discovery? Set deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of any additional pretrial motions. Schedule pretrial conference and require parties to lodge joint pretrial order not later than two weeks prior to date scheduled for pretrial conference.
2/26/21 -- Court approved order granting in part motion for summary
2:00 PM
adjudication. Judgment granted for plaintiff on first claim for relief ($44,648.66 nondischargeable pursuant to section 532(a)(6)) and denying without prejudice on other claims for relief. Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied. Discovery cutoff set for June 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 1, 2021:
Discovery cutoff is currently June 30, 2021. According to status report, plaintiff expects to complete hnis discovery on/by July 9, 2021. Does plaintiff need an extension of the discovery cutoff?
NOTE: Defendant's lack of consent to the entry of final orders by the bankruptcy court is ineffective here. This is a 523(a)(6) action and is a core proceeding. Court as authority to enter a final judgment.
Set deadline for filing pretrial motions and pretrial conference. Order parties to upload joint proposed pretrial order 14 days before pretrial conference.
Tentative Ruling for August 10, 2021:
Plaintiff filed on July 14, 2021 (using the notice and an opportunity for hearing procedure) a motion for entry of judgment on the first claim for relief and for dismissal of the remaining claims. Continue status conference to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to give court an opportunity to process motion.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 10, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Harold Winfred Dickens III Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Harold Winfred Dickens III Represented By William T Heywood
Plaintiff(s):
Kenneth S. Bradley, M.D. Represented By Joseph P Fleming
2:00 PM
Southern California Pain Represented By Joseph P Fleming
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01034 Gavrieli et al v. Gavrieli et al
Docket 14
- NONE LISTED -
3/31/21 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference and hearing on motion to dismiss to; June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
5/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving motion to dismiss original complaint. Amended complaint to be filed not later than May 24, 2021. Any hearing on motion to dismiss that complaint will be held June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021.
7/13/2021 -- OFF CALENDAR. COURT APPROVED STIPULATION SETTING NEW DEADLINE TO FILE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OR TO MOVE TO DISMISS COMPLAINT.
6/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 10, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. See order for additional dates. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 29, 2021.
OFF CALENDAR. DEFENDANTS WILL BE FILING A NEW ANSWER OR MOTION TO DISMISS.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner
2:00 PM
Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Defendant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
William N Lobel
Gavrieli Brands LLC Pro Se
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
William N Lobel
Plaintiff(s):
Dikla Gavrieli Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dikla Gavrieli, derivatively on Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dean Unatin Represented By
Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Trustee(s):
Sara L. Chenetz Represented By Sara Chenetz Amir Gamliel
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01034 Gavrieli et al v. Gavrieli et al
fr. 3-31-21, 4-27-21, 6-8-21, 6-29-21
Docket 1
5/24/21 - Amended Complaint filed.
3/31/21 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference and hearing on motion to dismiss to; June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
5/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving motion to dismiss original complaint. Amended complaint to be filed not later than May 24, 2021. Any hearing on motion to dismiss that complaint will be held June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Status conference continued to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.. OFF
CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021.
6/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 10, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. See order for additional dates. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 29, 2021.
7/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to September 14, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. See order for additional provisions. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 10, 2021.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Defendant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
William N Lobel
Gavrieli Brands LLC Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Dikla Gavrieli Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dikla Gavrieli, derivatively on Represented By Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Dean Unatin Represented By
Amy Quartarolo Peter Gilhuly Daniel S Schecter
Trustee(s):
Sara L. Chenetz Represented By Sara Chenetz Amir Gamliel
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01086 Mendez et al v. Tash, D.D.S
fr. 7/13/21
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
At request of parties, continue hearing to August 10, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to see if debtor dismisses underlying bankruptcy case. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 13, 2021. (7/7/21 -- Order entered to this effect.)
Continue hearing to August 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters on calendar for that date and time. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 10, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Defendant(s):
Raymond M. Tash D.D.S Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Tomas Mendez Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Dulce Mendez Represented By
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Keneth J Catanzarite
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#1.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: D.O. CAPITAL GROUP fr. 4-27-21, 7-27-21
Docket 35
7/19/21 - Notice of Rescheduled hearing mailed to parties. Hearing Rescheduled to 8/11/21 @ 11am.
If movant wants to file an adversary proceeding to have its debt excepted from the discharge under section 523(a)(2)(B) or to bar debtor's discharge under section 727(a)(4), it is free to do so, but the Court is not inclined to grant relief from the automatic stay on 523(a)(2)(B) or 727(a)(4) grounds. Similarly, if movant believes that debtor is ineligible for relief under subchapter V, it should object to the debtor's election to proceed under this chapter. This is not a basis for relief from the automatic stay.
Although "bad faith" can constitute cause for relief from stay, this does not appear to be a two-party dispute and filing bankruptcy on the eve of a foreclosure does not necessarily constitute a bad faith filing. Court is not yet persuaded that this is a bad faith filing or that reorganization within a reasonable period is unlikely.
As movant has not established a lack of adequate protection or other cause for relief from stay under section 362(d)(1) or that grounds exist for relief from stay under section 362(d)(2), deny motion without prejudice.
7/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. See order for additional provisions. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 27, 2021.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Movant(s):
D.O. Capital Group Represented By Arnold L Graff
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
fr. 4-28-21, 7-27-21
Docket 42
7/19/21 - Notice of Rescheduled hearing mailed to parties. Hearing Rescheduled to 8/11/21 @ 11am.
Court is not yet prepared to conclude that the prospect of reorganization is unlikely. Continue hearing approximately 90 days to give debtor an opportunity to make progress and court an opportunity to evaluate the extent to which progress is made.
7/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. See order for additional provisions. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 27, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Movant(s):
D.O. Capital Group Represented By Arnold L Graff
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
Docket 11
7/22/21 - Credit Counseling Certificate filed (dated 7/8/21)
Vacate OSC. Debtor has now filed missing documents. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED. COURT WILL PREPARE ORDER.
Debtor(s):
Donna Lynn Pascual Represented By Stanley D Bowman
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
fr. 6-9-21, 7-28-21
Docket 356
- NONE LISTED -
An attorney for a creditor who makes a substantial contribution to a chapter 11 case pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(D) may recover reasonable compensation for professional services rendered as an administrative expense under section 503(b)(4). In re Mortgages Ltd., 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 5093, 2010 WL 6259981, at *7 (9th Cir. BAP Aug. 4, 2010). The principal test of substantial contribution is "the extent of benefit to the estate." In re Cellular 101, Inc., 377 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2004), citing In re Christian Life Ctr., 821 F.2d 1370, 1373 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Pierson & Gaylen v. Creel & Atwood (In re Consol. Bancshares, Inc.), 785 F.2d 1249, 1253 (5th Cir.
1986) (reaffirming that "services which substantially contribute to a case are those which foster and enhance, rather than retard or interrupt the progress o[f] reorganization"). As stated in In re Catalina Spa & R.V. Resort, Ltd., 97
B.R. 13, 21 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1989):
Compensation cannot be freely given to all creditors who take an active role in bankruptcy proceedings, rather, it must be preserved for those rare occasions when the creditor's involvement truly fosters and enhances the administration of the estate. The integrity of § 503(b) can only be maintained by strictly limiting compensation to extra ordinary [sic] creditor actions which lead directly to significant and tangible benefits to the creditors, debtor, [*9] or the estate. While § 503 was enacted to encourage meaningful creditor participation, it should not become a vehicle for reimbursing every creditor who elects to hire an attorney.
11:00 AM
In re PG&E Corp., No. 19-30088-DM, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 371, at *8-9 (Bankr.
N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2021).
None of the subsections of section 503(b) are applicable on the facts of this case. NVSI cannot recover for the costs of negotiating or drafting the sale agreement. This was never within the contemplation of the parties. The debtor did not obtain a sale procedures order authorizing a cost reimbursement to the stalking horse, and NVSI was not the stalking horse. Had the sale closed, or if NSVI had been outbid at a sale, it would not have been able to recover these costs.
The costs that NVSI incurred were not the actual and necessary costs of preserving the estate within the meaning of section 503(b)(1)(A). This fact pattern bears no resemblance to the instances in which fees and expenses have been awarded under this section. And 503(b)(3) does not provide a basis for allowance of the claim here in that it is far from clear that NVSI is a creditor within the meaning of that section and this is not a chapter 9 or chapter 11 case.
Moreover, the Court cannot find on these facts that NVSI provided a substantial contribution to this case. If NVSI had not entered into an agreement to purchase the property by September 25, 2020, the Court would have converted the case to chapter 7 at that time, and the chapter 7 trustee would not have been under the time crunch imposed by the court and NVSI's demands that it close the sale as expeditiously as possible. The court is not ready to conclude that no other alternative would have been available other than a foreclosure by Bobs. And, in any event, that contribution, if there was one, would have been made during the course of the resulting chapter 7 case, not in the chapter 11.
However, the more difficult question is whether there is a basis for the allowance of an expense of administration under the reasoning of Reading Co. v. Brown, 391 U.S. 471 (1968). In that case, the Supreme Court held that damages resulting from the negligence of a receiver acting within the scope of his authority as receiver give rise to actual and necessary costs of a chapter XI arrangement even when there was no actual benefit to the estate.
11:00 AM
In Reading, the negligence of the receiver and/or a workman retained by the receiver resulted in a fire at the debtor's real property that spread to surrounding properties, causing 146 separate fire damage claims.
Reading can be read to support the proposition that it is appropriate to grant administrative status to fees arising out of post-petition transactions or contracts with a debtor in possession or a trustee when wrongful conduct on the part of the debtor in possession or trustee injures third parties. However, if there is no wrongful conduct on the part of the trustee, courts are unlikely to allow an administrative claim. See, e.g., Total Minatome Corp. v. Jack/Wade Drilling, Inc. (In re Jack/Wade Drilling, Inc.), 258 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2001) (although the trustee's conduct in bringing a breach of contract action that he eventually lost caused a third party to incur expense, as the trustee's conduct was not wrongful, no fee award was appropriate).
So how does this reasoning apply here? Did the debtor engage in wrongful conduct during the course of administering the estate that led NVSI to incur fees and expenses? He made optimistic representations to the court and the parties that it was unlikely that there would be significant capital gains liability if the sale were consummated. He failed to perform under the contract, causing the court to convert the case as a means to put a trustee in place promptly so that the contract could be performed. But is there any legal theory under which NVSI would be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and expenses now that the orders approving the contract have been vacated?
Could NVSI establish damages for fraud? Did the debtor knowingly make a false representation about the likelihood that there would be capital gains liability? Is there a contractual theory of recovery for attorneys' fees under the now-unenforceable contract in light of the fact that NVSI did not ultimately become the prevailing party?
In all the cases in which the holding of the Reading case has been used to grant administrative status to a claim asserted against the estate, there was an underlying tort or contract theory that entitled the party asserting the claim to recover. The question was whether or not the claim asserted should be treated as an administrative claim. What is the nonbankruptcy theory of recovery here? In the absence of a workable theory of liability, the Court would not be inclined to extend the holding of Reading to cover this fact
11:00 AM
pattern.
Hearing required.
6/23/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED ON JULY 28, 2021.
7/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to September 1, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED ON AUGUST 11, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
Movant(s):
NVSI, INC., its successors and/or Represented By
Joshua L Scheer Timothy J Silverman
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
Approve Compromise with JPMorgan Chase Bank
Approve Compromise with AP Highland Park LP and Authorize Lease Rejection of Los Angeles Premises
Approve Compromise with Gaetani Real Estate, Inc. for Steve Tappe et al. and Authorize Lease Rejection of San Francisco Premises
Authorize Sale Free and Clear of Liens of Estate's Right, Title and Interest in Intangible Assets including Assignment of Executory Contracts
Authorize Sale Free and Clear of Liens of Estate's Right, Title and Interest in Personal Property located at Los Angeles Premises
Authorize Sale Free and Clear of Liens of Estate's Right, Title and Interest in Personal Property located at San Francisco Premises
Authorize Abandonment of Property Remaining in Leased Premises FR. 6/30/21
Docket 37
ZoomGov Appearances by:
8/6/21 - Mark Romeo, (415)395-9315
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2021:
Are all agreements conditioned on approval of each and every agreement? Are any of the agreements conditioned on approval of any other agreement?
11:00 AM
Court appeciates the desire of the trustee to enconomize, but, except to the extent that the effectiveness of a given agreement is conditioned on approval of another agreement (and perhaps not even then), the court would prefer that separate compromises be the subject of separate motions. The trustee has combined too much into a single motion here, as a result, the motion is slight on detail and confusing.
What are the tangible assets being sold? Is there an inventory of them anywhere or is there just the general description contained in the body of the motion and the agreement? What steps has the trustee taken in an effort to market the tangible assets?
What are the debtor's franchise rights? Is the debtor the franchisor or a franchisee? Are these agreements even assignable? Copies of these agreements are not attached. Are there any arrearages under the agreements to be assumed and assigned? Exhibit A to Exhibit 5 identifies the contracts to be assigned as franchise agreements and multi-use development agreements in Singapore, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE. Were the counterparties to these agreements even served with this motion? Is there any description of what these rights actually are anywhere in the motion?
Why is Exhibit 5 not even completed or signed? Has Vijay Pillai signed this agreement? (Debtor has now filed a signed copy of this agreement.)
What is the trustee's response to Chase's notice of conditional nonopposition?
Hearing required.
Final Ruling for June 30, 2021:
Motion granted in part and continued in part.
Compromise with Chase was approved, subject to modifications discussed on the record concerning a carveout for Financial Pacific.
11:00 AM
Court granted balance of relief requested by motion, with the exception of the abandonment/sale of the San Francisco equipment. Hearing on that portion of the relief requested by the motion continued to August 11, 2021 at 11:00. Any supplemental papers must be filed by August 2, 2021.
With regard to sale of intangibles, after negotiations at hearing, court approved sale by trustee to two different purchasers for a total of $150,000 -- one for rights in the Middle East, Europe and the UK and including Instagram and website; the other for Asia and the United States and balance of intellectual property. (Rights in other parts of the world to be held jointly unless parties agree to different division.) Court set holding date of July 13, 2021 at 10:00 for a continued hearing on the form of the order concerning the sale of intangibles.) Trustee should lodge an order on balance of relief and note in that order that the trustee's sale of intangibles will be addressed in a separate order.
7/6/21 -- Court approved order memorializing June 30, 2021 rulings.
Final Ruling from July 13, 2021:
Hearing on form of order can be taken off calendar. Parties have agreed upon and are circulating approved form of order.
7/15/21 -- Court approved order on sale of intangibles.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2021:
What, if anything, has transpired since June 30, 2021 with regard to the San Francisco equipment? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Mr. Holmes, Inc. Represented By David B Zolkin
Movant(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Zev Shechtman
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By Zev Shechtman
11:00 AM
fr. 12-11-19, 3-18-20, 3-26-20, 4-29-20, 6-3-20, 6-17-20, 8-12-20, 2-3-21
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
10/24/19 -- Court granted motion for order setting bar date: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 28, 2019
Bar date -- December 27, 2019
Tentative Ruling for December 11, 2019:
Is there any seasonality to the debtor's business? If so, what is it? What has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to file a plan and disclosure statement? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for December 11, 2019:
Continue case status conference to March 18, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Disclosure statement may be heard at same date and time if filed not less than 42 days prior to this date. Debtor should file and serve updated status report by March 6, 2020. (Court later moved hearing to March 26, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.)
Tentative Ruling for March 26, 2020:
PARTIES WISHING TO APPEAR MUST MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY BY CONTACTING COURT CALL AT 866-582-6878 OR ONLINE.
Continue case status conference to be heard concurrently with hearing on disclosure statement scheduled for April 29, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Debtors need not file updated
11:00 AM
status report. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 26, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 29, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for June 17, 2020:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for August 12, 2020:
If court confirms plan, schedule post-confirmation status conference and set deadline for reorganized debtor to file status report.
Tentative Ruling for February 3, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's post-confirmation status report. Continue case status conference to August; 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than July 23, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON FEBRUARY 3, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's post-confirmation status report. Continue case status conference to January 12, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report not later than December 30, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 11, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Settlers Jerky Inc. Represented By David L. Neale
Krikor J Meshefejian
11:00 AM
U.S.C. § 1112(b) FR. 7-14-21; 7-28-21
Docket 163
6/29/21 - Notice to pay Court costs in the amount of $350.00 was sent to Leslie Cohen, Debtor's Counsel and must be paid prior to this hearing.
7/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
7/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 28, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2021:
What has transpired since approval of compromises? Are the parties ready to see this case dismissed? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Movant(s):
Knotting Hill, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
S Double, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
11:00 AM
Sefox Investment, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
IJ Properties LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
El Marino, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
11:00 AM
Dismissing Bankruptcy Case Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B)(1), or, in the Alternative,
Granting Relief from the Automatic Stay
fr. 3-17-21, 4-21-21, 6-9-21, 6-16-21, 7-7-21, 7-28-21
Docket 82
- NONE LISTED -
Final Ruling from March 17, 2021:
Continue hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with hearing on debtor's disclosure statement. The court will have a better opportunity to examine whether the debtor is acting in good faith and proceeding diligently with a reorganization of its affairs in the context of evaluating its proposed plan and disclosure statement. No new briefing on this motion will be permitted. Additional briefing as to whether there is a reasonable likelihood of reorganization within a reasonable period should come in the context of the hearing on the debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Having reviewed and analyzed the debtor's proposed plan, the court is left with the distinct impression that, with limited exception, this case is a two- party dispute and that the purpose of the bankruptcy filing was for the debtor to obtain a more favorable forum for the litigation of any remaining disputes with Canico. Grant motion to dismiss as a bad faith filing.
11:00 AM
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Parties reported that a settlement has been reached. What is the nature of the agreement? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 7, 2021:
Would Canico and the debtor be entitled to enter into the proposed compromise if this case weren't in bankruptcy? If so, perhaps the motion should be granted and the case dismissed. Discuss with the parties the remedies that would be available to other secured creditors if the case were dismissed. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
If court approves compromises, should this motion be granted? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2021:
What has transpired since approval of compromises? Are the parties ready to see this case dismissed? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Movant(s):
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
11:00 AM
fr. 9-30-20, 1-6-21, 3-3-21, 3-17-21, 4-21-21, 6-9-21, 6-16-21, 7-7-21,
7-28-21
Docket 1
6/29/21 - Notice to pay Court costs in the amount of $350.00 was sent to Leslie Cohen, Debtor's Counsel and must be paid prior to this hearing.
Set deadline for serving notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
10/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 7, 2020
Bar date -- December 7, 2020
L/D to file updated status report -- December 28, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by December 28, 2020? Hearing required.
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has received status report filed December 29, 2020. Other than submitting to a 2004 examination and serving a notice of bar date, what if any steps toward reorganization have been accomplished since the last status conference and what has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to propose a plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 6, 2021:
11:00 AM
Continue hearing to March 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with hearing on creditor's motion to dismiss or in the alternative relief from stay. Waive requirement that new status report be filed for this continued conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 3, 2021:
Creditor noticed hearing on motion to dismiss or in the alternative for relief from stay for March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m Continue case status conference to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with that hearing. No new status report required. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 3, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Continue case status conference to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to approve debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2021:
What has transpired since approval of compromises? Are the parties ready to see this case dismissed? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen
11:00 AM
Nathan D Meyer
11:00 AM
Docket 531
NONE LISTED -
Grant motion. Extend deadline for debtors to assume or reject nonresidential leases to October 7, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Alphamorlai Lamine Kebeh
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Alphamorlai Lamine Kebeh
11:00 AM
Docket 552
NONE LISTED -
Grant motion. Approve compromise. (Make sure parties understand that order approving compromise will not govern in the event of an inconsistency between the terms of the compromise and a confirmed plan. It will be up to the lender to raise an objection if and to the extent that any plan proposed by the debtor is inconsistent in any respect with the terms of the compromise.)
Debtor(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Alphamorlai Lamine Kebeh
Movant(s):
Airport Van Rental, Inc., a California Represented By
Zev Shechtman John N Tedford IV Michael G D'Alba
Alphamorlai Lamine Kebeh
11:00 AM
MOVANT: D.O. CAPITAL GROUP fr. 4-27-21, 7-27-21
Docket 35
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/5/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)610-0000
8/9/21 - Georga Lazar, (619)595-7187
If movant wants to file an adversary proceeding to have its debt excepted from the discharge under section 523(a)(2)(B) or to bar debtor's discharge under section 727(a)(4), it is free to do so, but the Court is not inclined to grant relief from the automatic stay on 523(a)(2)(B) or 727(a)(4) grounds. Similarly, if movant believes that debtor is ineligible for relief under subchapter V, it should object to the debtor's election to proceed under this chapter. This is not a basis for relief from the automatic stay.
Although "bad faith" can constitute cause for relief from stay, this does not appear to be a two-party dispute and filing bankruptcy on the eve of a foreclosure does not necessarily constitute a bad faith filing. Court is not yet persuaded that this is a bad faith filing or that reorganization within a reasonable period is unlikely.
As movant has not established a lack of adequate protection or other cause for relief from stay under section 362(d)(1) or that grounds exist for relief from
11:00 AM
stay under section 362(d)(2), deny motion without prejudice.
7/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. See order for additional provisions. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 27, 2021.
7/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. See order for additional provisions. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 11, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Movant(s):
D.O. Capital Group Represented By Arnold L Graff
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
fr. 4-28-21, 7-27-21
Docket 42
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/5/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)610-0000
8/9/21 - Georga Lazar, (619)595-7187
Court is not yet prepared to conclude that the prospect of reorganization is unlikely. Continue hearing approximately 90 days to give debtor an opportunity to make progress and court an opportunity to evaluate the extent to which progress is made.
7/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. See order for additional provisions. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 27, 2021.
7/22/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. See order for additional provisions. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 11, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
11:00 AM
Movant(s):
D.O. Capital Group Represented By Arnold L Graff
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
Authorizing the Refinance of Real Property
Authorizing Payment of all Court and Administrative Fees and Cost
Dismissing Case
Docket 100
7/15/21 - Notice to pay Court costs in the amount of $350.00 was sent to Summer Shaw, Debtor's Counsel and must be paid prior to this hearing.
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/5/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)610-0000
8/9/21 - Georga Lazar, (619)595-7187
Is this financing merely "kicking the can down the road"? Will the debtor be able to service and eventually refinance the new debt when it comes due in 12 months, or will he need to file bankruptcy again in a year?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Movant(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Summer M Shaw Summer M Shaw Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai Yuriko M Shikai Yuriko M Shikai
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
fr. 4-21-21, 4-28-21, 7-27-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/5/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)610-0000
8/9/21 - Georga Lazar, (619)595-7187
Where is the case status report? Continue case status conference to April 28, 2021 at 10:00 a..m. to be heard concurrently with creditor's motion to dismiss. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 21, 2021. (Debtor should file required status report before that date. See docket no. 11.)
CONTINUE CASE STATUS CONFERENCE TO AUGUST 11, 2021 AT 11:00
A.M. TO BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY WITH OTHER MATTERS ON CALENDAR IN THE CASE AT THAT TIME. Off calendar for July 27, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on mtion for approval of financing and dismissal of case.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
Adv#: 2:21-01071 Lee et al v. Tash et al
fr. 6-29-21, 7-27-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/5/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)610-0000
Plaintiff obtained a replacement summons on May 15, 2021. Was that summons served in a timely manner? If not, why not? Hearing required.
6/24/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to July 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 29, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 27, 2021:
Court could continue hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss underlying bankruptcy case (as this action will become moot if the case is dismissed), but parties have also requested that this matter be sent to mediation and status report does not request a further continuance. Do the parties want to be ordered to mediation now or should the court continue the status conference to coincide with the hearing on the motion to dismiss?
11:00 AM
At request of parties, continue hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2021:
Action will become moot if case is dismissed. Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 109 on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Defendant(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Pro Se
Raymond M. Tash, D.D.S., A Represented By Summer M Shaw
Plaintiff(s):
Sung Y. Lee Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Sung Y. Lee DMD, Inc. Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
Adv#: 2:21-01073 Lee, DDS et al v. Tash et al
fr. 6-29-21, 7-27-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/5/21 - Summer Shaw, (760)610-0000
Court could continue hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to dismiss underlying bankruptcy case, but parties have also requested that this matter be sent to mediation and status report does not request a further continuance. And this action will not be moot even if the case is dismissed, as this is the lawsuit that was removed from state court. Do the parties want to be ordered to mediation now or should the court continue the status conference to coincide with the hearing on the motion to dismiss?
At request of parties, continue hearing to August 11, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2021:
Although action will not be moot even if the underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed, action would need to be remanded. Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 109 on calendar.
11:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Defendant(s):
Raymond Madijidian Tash Represented By Paul S Marks Yuriko M Shikai
Raymond M. Tash, D.D.S. a Represented By Paul S Marks Yuriko M Shikai Summer M Shaw
Plaintiff(s):
Sung Young Lee, DDS Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Sung Y. Lee DMD, Inc. Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
11:00 AM
Adv#: 2:21-01086 Mendez et al v. Tash, D.D.S
fr. 7/13/21, 8-10-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
At request of parties, continue hearing to August 10, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to see if debtor dismisses underlying bankruptcy case. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 13, 2021. (7/7/21 -- Order entered to this effect.)
Continue hearing to August 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters on calendar for that date and time. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 10, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Madjidian Tash Represented By Summer M Shaw Yuriko M Shikai
Defendant(s):
Raymond M. Tash D.D.S Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Tomas Mendez Represented By
Keneth J Catanzarite
Dulce Mendez Represented By
11:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Keneth J Catanzarite
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
6/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation giving US Trustee until October 22, 2021 to file complaint under section 727 and deeming this motion withdrawn. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Mahdi Raghfar Represented By Michael E Clark
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 14
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/11/21 - Kelly Morrison, (202)567-1120
Grant motion. Dismiss case pursuant to bankruptcy code section 707(b)(1). There is a presumption of abuse that has not been rebutted.
Debtor(s):
Maria Felix Represented By
Jaime A Cuevas Jr.
Movant(s):
United States Trustee (LA) Represented By Kelly L Morrison
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(1) and (b)(2) and (3)(B) and Contingent Motion to Extend Bar Date for Filing Complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 727 Objecting to Debtors' Discharges
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
7/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation re dismissal of case, resolving motion. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Naba Kishore Kar Represented By Suzette Douglas
Joint Debtor(s):
Bijayalaxmi Kar Represented By Suzette Douglas
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(1) and (b)(2) and (3)(B) and 11 U.S.C. Section 707 (a) and Contingent Motion to Extend Bar Date for Filing Complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 727 Objecting to Debtor's Discharge
Docket 15
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/11/21 - Kelly Morrison, (202)567-1120
Grant motion. Dismiss case pursuant to bankruptcy code section 707(b)(1). There is a presumption of abuse that has not been rebutted.
Debtor(s):
Anthony Alan Harang Pro Se
Trustee(s):
John J Menchaca (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(1) and (b)(2) and (3)(B) and Contingent Motion to Extend Bar Date for Filing Complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 727 Objecting to Debtor's Discharge
Docket 19
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/11/21 - Kelly Morrison, (202)567-1120 8/11/21 - Sevan Gorginian, (818)928-4445
If and when the size of debtor's household increases, she may be entitled to increase her housing expense, but the language of debtor's declaration makes clear that this has not yet occurred. With regard to debtor's contention that the means test is archaic or should be updated in light of the pandemic, these, unfortunately, are not decisions left to the discretion of the court. The code sections in question were specifically drafted by Congress in such a way as to limit or eliminate the discretion of the bankruptcy court.
Grant motion. Based on current income and expense information, there is a presumption of abuse that has not been rebutted. Dismiss case under section 707(b)(1) (unless debtor would prefer to convert case to chapter 13).
Debtor(s):
Alina Hovhanessian Represented By Sevan Gorginian
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(1) and (b)(2) and (3)(B) and Contingent Motion to Extend Bar Date for Filing Complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 727 Objecting to Debtor's Discharge
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/11/21 - Kelly Morrison, (202)567-1120
Court agrees with US Trustee that income calculations are correct. The means test form needs to be prepared with an average of the debtors' income over the six months preceding the bankruptcy filing. The fact that the debtor may have cashed out his paid time off during this six-month period (and does so every six months) is not a reason for the court to exclude a portion of the income from the calculation.
Does the debtor have one vehicle or two? Debtor listed one vehicle on his schedules and testified at his 341(a) meeting on June 9 that he only had one car. And why does the debtor need two vehicles, as there is only one driver in the household? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Ray Saliba Maymoun Represented By Daniel King
Trustee(s):
Peter J Mastan (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/2/21 - Mark Bloom, (305)789-8900 8/2/21 - Nicholas Kennedy, (305)789-8900 8/2/21 - Reginal Sainvil, (305)789-8900 8/6/21 - Hamid Rafatjoo, (310)371-7589
8/6/21 - Carollynn H.G. Callari, (908)240-3964 8/6/21 - David Forsh, (917)282-0203
8/10/21 - Alexander Burch, (305)789-8900
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
There is no need for a continuance, discovery or an evidentiary hearing here. The operative facts are not in dispute.
Mr. Smagin is an individual citizen of the Russian Federation residing in Moscow and is a debtor in an insolvency proceeding pending in Moscow. In such proceedings, notice is provided to all known creditors. Creditors are permitted to submit claims and to participate in the process. Russian insolvency law provides for the disposition of Mr. Smagin's assets (excluding
10:00 AM
certain assets exempt under applicable law) and for the distribution of the resulting proceeds in accordance with the priority scheme established by Russian insolvency law.
Creditors participating in his insolvency proceeding did not accept Mr. Smagin's proposed restructing plan and therefore applied to the insolevency court in Moscow for the commencement of liquidation procedures. Mr.
Ratnikov was appointed as the trustee/liquidation officer to accomplish that liquidation. The debtor contends that there are nefarious goings on and that Mr. Ratnikov should be removed, but he has already presented these arguments to the court in Moscow and they have been rejected by that court. Although the debtor may have appealed one or more decisions of the Moscow court, no one contends that there is anything equivalent to a stay pending appeal of Mr. Ratnikov's appointment. Therefore, unless and until the Moscow insolvency court or a higher court with jurisdiction over the insolvency proceeding removes Mr. Ratnikov, he is the duly-authorized foreign representative in Mr. Smagin's insolvency proceeding.
Mr. Smagin's center of main interest is Russia, and Mr. Smagin's insolvency proceeding qualifies as a "collective" proceeding within the meaning of chapter 15. Therefore, his Russian insolvency proceeding constitutes a foreign main proceeding. This court need not assess whether the Russian insolvency proceeding is in fact turning out in such a way as to yield a benefit to the debtor's creditors in order to assess whether or not the proceeding qualifies as a collective proceeding. The process is structured in such a way as to create a collective remedy for Mr. Smagin's creditors. Whether this is a collective proceeding is a legal issue that can be resolved in the affirmative based on the undisputed testimony provided by applicant as to how a Russian insolvency proceeding works, not a factual one that requires discovery or an evidentiary hearing as the debtor contends.
Grant petition, along with the limited additional relief requested in the petition necessary to permit the foreign representative to administer the debtor's assets in the United States. If and when Mr. Smagin succeeds in having someone other than Mr. Ratnikov appointed as the trustee/liquidating officer in his insolvency proceeding, the court will modify the authority granted in this chapter 15 case accordingly. However, until that occurs, the relief requested
10:00 AM
by Mr. Ratnikov is wholly appropriate. The debtor has not even identified any facts or circumstances that would, if proven, be sufficient to suggest that there is any public policy reason why this court should substitute its own judgment for that of the insolvency court in Moscow as to the propriety of permitting Mr. Ratnikov to serve in this capacity. (Court notes that there is no requirement in chapter 15 that the foreign representative be "disinterested" or free from conflicts of interest. Whether or not Mr. Ratnikov is an appropriate representative is an issue for the Moscow insolvency court to decide, not this court.) And it would make no sense and serve no purpose whatsoever to recognize Mr. Ratnikov as the foreign representative but refuse to provide him with the authority and powers that he needs to take control over the debtor's assets within this jurisdiction.
Final Ruling for July 28, 2021:
Grant motion insofar as it requests recognition, but set continued hearing for August 10, 2021 at 10:00 am to discuss how to structure additional relief to be granted to ensure that lawsuits are prosecuted in a manner that protects interests of all parties concerned. Court advised that foreign representative will be required to comply with Bankruptcy Code sections 363 and 554 as well as FRBP 9019 with regard to disposition of lawsuits and that a disinterested party should be appointed to prosecute the action currently on appeal, as foreign representative is one of the defendants.
7/30/2021 -- Court signed order memorializing tentative ruling.
Tentative Ruling for August 10, 2021:
Has foreign representative prepared a proposed form of order? What progress has been made since 7/28/2021 hearing?
Debtor(s):
Vitaly Ivanovich Smagin Represented By Hamid R Rafatjoo
Nicholas O Kennedy
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
VIN# 4T1B11HKXKU788357
MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
Docket 23
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/16/21 - Austin Nagel, (925)577-3430
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Mario Pablo Diaz Pleitez Represented By
Jonathan Hidalgo - SUSPENDED -
Joint Debtor(s):
Roxana Claribel Valladares Juarez Represented By
Jonathan Hidalgo - SUSPENDED -
Movant(s):
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By
Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# JTDEPRAE8LJ014324
MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
Docket 24
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/16/21 - Austin Nagel, (925)577-3430
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Mario Pablo Diaz Pleitez Represented By
Jonathan Hidalgo - SUSPENDED -
Joint Debtor(s):
Roxana Claribel Valladares Juarez Represented By
Jonathan Hidalgo - SUSPENDED -
Movant(s):
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By
Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: WRPV XIV OLIVE LA, LLC.
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
Grant with waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) and annulment.
Debtor(s):
HYE JIN YUN Represented By Jaenam J Coe
Movant(s):
WRPV XIV Olive LA, LLC Represented By
Agop Gary Arakelian
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
MOVANT: STEPHEN BROWN
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/13/21 - Eric Bensamochan, (818)574-5740
Deny motion, but clarify in order denying motion that denial is because movant does not need relief from stay to proceed against nondebtors in the UD action so that order will serve as the "comfort order" that movant has requested.
Debtor(s):
Louis Joseph Torrellas Represented By John Asuncion
Andrew Edward Smyth
Movant(s):
Stephen Brown Represented By
Eric Bensamochan
Trustee(s):
John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VIN# KNMAT2MT8GP616834
MOVANT: NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
Docket 8
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/16/21 - Austin Nagel, (925)577-3430
Grant without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3).
Debtor(s):
Evelyn Orozco Represented By Francis Guilardi
Movant(s):
Nissan Motor Acceptance Represented By Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
v. Doug Wall Construction, et al MOVANT: TANDEM WEST GLASS, INC.
fr. 5-25-21, 6-8-21, 6-29-21, 7-13-21, 7-27-21
Docket 181
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/10/21 - Marsha A. Houston, (213)457-8000 8/10/21 - Christopher O. Rivas (213)457-8000 8/16/21 - Steve verman, (813)227-2332
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Grant motion to the extent necessary to permit parties to litigate their disputes
10:00 AM
to a final judgment. Enforcement should remain stayed.
6/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 13, 2021:
Tentative ruling from June 29, 2021 remains unchanged.
7/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR J
JULY 13, 2021.
7/14/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021.
8/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 17, 2021. (See order for
additional dates.)
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Tandem West Glass, Inc. Represented By Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
MOVANT: AL MILLER & SONS ROOFING CO., INC. fr. 5-25-21, 6-8-21, 6-29-21, 7-13-21, 7-27-21
Docket 180
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/10/21 - Marsha A. Houston, (213)457-8000 8/10/21 - Christopher O. Rivas (213)457-8000 8/16/21 - Steve verman, (813)227-2332
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Grant motion to the extent necessary to permit parties to litigate their disputes
10:00 AM
to a final judgment. Enforcement should remain stayed.
6/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 13, 2021:
Tentative ruling from June 29, 2021 remains unchanged.
7/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 13, 2021.
7/14/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021.
8/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 17, 2021. (See order for
additional dates.)
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Al Miller & Sons Roofing Co., Inc. Represented By
Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
MOVANT: STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS, INC. Fr. 7-6-21, 7-27-21
Docket 31
NONE LISTED -
6/21/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (See order for additional deadlines.) OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 6, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 27, 2021:
At request of parties, continue hearing to August 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. See parties' July 12, 2021 for additional dates. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021.
7/21/21 -- Court approved order continuing hearing to August 17, 2021 at 10:00 am
8/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving motion. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Hilmore LLC Represented By
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Crystle Jane Lindsey Daniel J Weintraub
Strategic Acquisitions, Inc. Represented By Harris L Cohen
10:00 AM
MOVANT: PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, INC.
Docket 52
ZoomGov Appearances by:
8/10/21 - Michael Jay Berger, (310)271-6223 8/11/21- Thomas Geher, (310)712-6820 8/16/21 - Richard Brunette, (213)617-4174 8/16/21 - Steven Berkowitz, (310)550-1220 8/16/21 - Asa Hami, (213)617-5233
Rulings on Movant's Evidentiary Objections:
Hicks Declaration
Sustain (lack of personal knowledge/foundation). Declarant states that he supervised the recording of the notice of default, but doesn't say that he personally oversaw service or had any involvement in who was served.
Overrule.
Overrule.
Berger Declaration
Sustain. This is argument, not testimony.
10:00 AM
Sustain. This is argument, not testimony.
Overrule. Court can take judicial notice of the date on which the motion was filed.
Sustain. Lack of personal knowledge (and merely argument based on someone else's proferred evidence).
5 through 18. Sustain. This is argument, not testimony.
19. Sustain. Lack of personal knowledge (and merely argument based on someone else's proferred evidence).
20 through 22. Sustain. This is argument, not testimony.
23. Sustain (best evidence rule).
24 through 28. Sustain. This is argument, not testimony.
29. Sustain (best evidence rule).
30 through 41. Sustain. This is argument, not testimony.
Overrule.
Sustain. This is argument, not testimony.
Tentative Ruling on the Merits
Pacific is the holder of a mechanic's lien that was recorded on March 2, 2021. Therefore, under applicable nonbankruptcy law, Pacific had until May 31, 2021 to commence an action to foreclose the lien in order to preserve its lien (which is a lien with priority of the kind that relates back).
Debtor commenced this bankruptcy case on May 27, 2021 at 6:29 p.m. Less than 24 hours later, at 5:21 p.m. on May 28, 2021. Pacific filed its state court action to foreclose its lien. Pacific first learned of the bankruptcy filing on June 2, 2021, which was after the deadline for it to perfect its lien by filing a foreclosure action.
Section 546(b), which permits/instructs a secured party to perfect certain kinds of liens/interests by filing a notice instead of commencing an action does not extend the time period for taking this action. It merely converts the action that must be taken into the service of a notice rather than the commencement of an action, but section 546(b) is of no use whatsoever to a creditor on these facts. How in the world would Pacific have known that it should have filed a 546(b) notice instead of commencing an action if it did not know that a bankruptcy case had been filed?
The debtor and Stalgi seem to think it is significant that Pacific was served
10:00 AM
with notice of an upcoming foreclosure sale on May 28, 2021, but this fact, even if proven with admissible evidence, is not relevant to the analysis. The relevant state court statutes do not say that a mechanics lien holder has to file its lawsuit earlier than would otherwise be required if there is a pending foreclosure sale by another secured party. And there is no authority for the proposition that a creditor can be charged with knowledge of a bankruptcy filing (and, therefore, that annulment of the stay should be denied) if a creditor should have suspected that a debtor was likely to file bankruptcy in order to prevent a foreclosure.
The positions advanced by Stagli and the debtor here are wholly unreasonable. Pacific did nothing wrong. It brought its state court foreclosure action in a timely manner without knowledge of the bankruptcy filing. And no one has been prejudiced because Pacific waited less than two months before bringing this motion.
The Court rejects the argument that Acevedo stands for the proposition that a bankruptcy court may not validate an action taken in violation of the stay by annulling the stay. There was no statute in Acevedo that specifically and expressly authorized the form of relief granted in that case. Section 362(d) expressly authorizes the bankruptcy court to, among other things, annul the automatic stay. The Court agrees with the reasoning of the Court in In re Merriman, 616 B.R. 381, 387 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 2020).
It would be unreasonable on these facts for Pacific to have done anything other than what it did here. If it had filed a 546(b) notice the minute it learned of the bankruptcy filing, that would have accomplished nothing as the applicable period under nonbankruptcy law for perfection had already run.
The facts of this case cry out for annulment of the stay to protect the interests of the creditor who did everything it should have done and could not reasonably have been expected to do anything else.
Moreover, and in the alternative, even if the court were to simply grant relief from stay now to permit Pacific to commence an action to foreclose its mechanic's lien (for the purpose of ensuring the perfection of that lien and not to permit it to move forward with a foreclosure), it would not be too late for Pacific to bring such an action. As both objecting parties have observed,
10:00 AM
relying on Baldwin Builders, the automatic stay barred Pacific from commencing the state court action necessary to perfect its lien at a time when the deadline for the commencement of such an action had not run under applicable nonbankruptcy law. Therefore, section 108(c) gives Pacific until the later of the deadline for filing the action (May 31, 2021) and 30 days after notice of termination or expiration of the automatic stay to bring this action. In re Hunters Run Ltd. Partnership, 875 F.2d 1425 (9th Cir. 1989). If the court were to grant this motion, Pacific would then have a period of 30 days to commence its state court action to foreclose its mechanics lien. It would accomplish nothing to require Pacific to do this again. Annulment to the extent necessary to validate the filing of the action, but leaving the prosecution of the action stayed, is the more appropriate remedy.
Grant motion, with annulment and waiver of 14-day stay.
Debtor(s):
Alex A. Khadavi Represented By Michael Jay Berger
Movant(s):
Pacific Construction Enterprises, Represented By
Asa S Hami
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01157 Yoo v. Morga et al
fr. 9-15-20, 10-20-20, 12-8-20, 2-9-21, 4-20-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Set deadline for plaintiff to file request for entry of default and motion for entry of default judgment. Continue status conference to coincide with hearing on default judgment motion.
9/11/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to September 14, 2020 and continuing status conference to October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF
CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to December 8, 2020 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than November 24, 2020 if matter has not been dismissed by then. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 20, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 9, 2020:
At request of parties, continue status conference to February 9, 2021 at 2:00
p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than January 26, 2021 if matter has not been dismissed by then. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for February 9, 2021:
At request of trustee, continue status conference to April 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should
2:00 PM
file joint status report not later than April 6, 2021. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for April 20, 2021:
Set discovery cutoff for late summer. Why doesn't plaintiff want this matter sent to mediation? Hearing required.
4/26/21 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- August 17, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- August 3, 2021
L/D to conduct discovery -- August 31, 2021
8/5/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to September 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 17, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Juanita Frances Lohran Represented By James A Dumas Jr
Defendant(s):
Teresa Ann Morga Represented By Timothy McFarlin
Juanita Frances Lohran Represented By Timothy McFarlin
Plaintiff(s):
Timothy J Yoo Represented By Carmela Pagay
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By Carmela Pagay
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01183 DYE v. Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. et al
fr. 7-27-21
Docket 165
NONE LISTED -
6/21/21 -- Court entered order continuing hearing to August 17, 2021 at 2:00 pm. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 27, 2021.
7/28/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. (See order for additional dates.)
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
Defendant(s):
Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
John Burgee Represented By
Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Robert Abramoff Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Movant(s):
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By Steven M Berman Stella A Havkin
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:15-01535 Murtagh v. BAKER et al
Docket 776
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/11/21 - Peter Arhangelsky, (602)334-4416 8/16/21 - Derek Linke, (206)274-2800 8/16/21 - Douglas Neistat, (818)382-6200 8/17/21 - Rachel Horvitz, (253)264-8858
The only timely objection is that of Clark Baker, but that objection is not well- founded. The only argument advanced in that objection is that the amount of damages requested in the motion exceeds the amount requested in the complaint filed in state court, but that has no bearing on anything. As the objection itself notes in a footnote, the complaint that commenced this adversary proceeding did not specify a damage amount, and the court's findings of fact in this adversary proceeding were not in any way based on anything that transpired in the state court action. The defendant answered the complaint in this action and only had his answer stricken as a sanction for misconduct. Any argument that may be framed based on a defendant's reliance upon the amount of damages specified in a complaint as to his maximum exposure in a lawsuit has nothing to do with his potential exposure in a different lawsuit in which he did not decide to default.
With regard to NIC's opposition, it is late-filed and far beyond the scope of anything that NIC may argue in this action. NIC is not a defendant and was only brought in in connection with its assertion of privilege with regard to
2:00 PM
documents sought through discovery. The court will not entertain any arguments that NIC may wish to advance as to the breadth or propriety of the injunction generally. Moreover, NIC itself states on page 7, at lines 9 through 11 of its opposition, "Other than in the NIC v. NTG lawsuit, NIC has no intention (and has never) published content about or concerning Dr.
Murtagh." The Court is willing to have NIC explain in concrete and specific detail what NIC has published with regard to Dr. Murtagh and why so that the court may determine whether this content should or should not fall within the scope of the proposed injunction.
The court rejects NIC's request for an order concerning the future of data turned over to Mr. Broom. There are numerous orders governing how that data should be handled and none of that is relevant to the resolution of this motion.
The court also rejects plaintiff's request for issuance of an OSC concerning the payment of fees and costs by NIC. If plaintiff would like to recover fees and costs from NIC, he should commence a separate proceeding against it in an appropriate forum, but the Court will not issue such an order in this proceeding.
With regard to the merits of this motion, the court has already made all of the factual findings necessary to support a judgment under section 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury to plaintiff by defendant Baker. Baker embarked upon and has continued for years a campaign to inflict injury on Dr. Murtagh, with the express purpose of, among other things, ruining him professionally. There could not be a clearer example of willful and malicious injury warranting an exception to discharge under section 523(a)(6). The only issue is the amount of damage that the plaintiff has suffered. Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence and expert testimony to support his request for a compensatory damage award of $10,342,525. In addition, both the state court sanction award of $60,000 and this court's sanction award of
$133,319.71 should be excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(6) as well in light of the nature of the conduct for which Baker was sanctioned.
Hearing required as to propriety of request for punitive damages of
$20,000,000. How did plaintiff arrive at this figure?
2:00 PM
With regard to plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, court agrees that, absent injunctive relief, Baker will continue to engage in the same harmful conduct and will continue to inflict damage upon plaintiff in the same manner. Subject to the issue noted above with regard to NIC v. NTG, include in judgment injunctive relief requested by plaintiff.
Debtor(s):
CLARK WARREN BAKER Represented By
Alan F Broidy - DISBARRED - Baruch C Cohen
Defendant(s):
CLARK WARREN BAKER Represented By Jessica Ponce
Movant(s):
James Murtagh Represented By David P Bleistein Lisa Hiraide Douglas M Neistat Michael J Conway Derek Linke Derek A Newman
James Murtagh Represented By David P Bleistein Lisa Hiraide Michael J Conway Douglas M Neistat
Plaintiff(s):
James Murtagh Represented By David P Bleistein Lisa Hiraide Douglas M Neistat
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Michael J Conway Derek Linke Derek A Newman
Sam S Leslie (TR) Represented By Carolyn A Dye
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:15-01535 Murtagh v. BAKER et al
fr. 12-8-15, 2-9-16, 4-5-16, 5-10-16, 5-24-16, 5-31-16, 9-27-16, 11-15-16,
1-10-17, 3-14-17, 6-13-17, 6-27-17, 7-11-17, 10-31-17, 2-13-18, 3-13-18,
5-8-18, 6-27-18, 8-16-18, 9-27-18, 12-11-18, 1-8-19, 3-12-19, 4-2-19, 6-11-19,
7-30-19, 10-15-19,11-19-19, 12-3-19, 3-31-20, 6-16-20, 7-21-20, 10-27-20,
11-10-20, 12-15-20, 1-12-21, 4-27-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/11/21 - Peter Arhangelsky, (602)334-4416 8/16/21 - Derek Linke, (206)274-2800 8/16/21 - Douglas Neistat, (818)382-6200 8/17/21 - Rachel Horvitz, (253)264-8858
Defendant's counsel should not handwrite documents to be filed with the Court. His writing is illegible.
Continue status conference to May 10, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters that will be on calendar for that date. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for May 31, 2016:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
2:00 PM
6/2/16 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates: Cont'd status conference -- September 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- September 13, 2016
Discovery cutoff -- September 30, 2016
L/D to lodge order appointing mediator -- June 17, 2016 Deadline to complete mediation -- September 27, 2016
7/6/16 -- court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for September 27, 2016:
Plaintiff has filed a notice of inability to prepare joint status report. Where is the declaration required by LBR 7016-1(a)(3) that must be included whenever a party submits a unilateral status report? Why haven't the parties used the mandatory status report form required by LBR 7016-1(a)(2)? When counsel for plaintiff provided a draft status report that did not comply with the Local Bankruptcy Rules, why didn't counsel for the defendant file a unilateral report in compliance with LBR 7016-1(a)(3)?
Impose sanctions of $150 on counsel for each of the parties. Counsel for the plaintiff is urged to download a current version of the Court's local rules, as he is apparently relying on an outdated version of the rules. He should refer to the Court's website.
As a result, although there is a great deal of alleged information contained in plaintiff's filing, none of it is evidence and it does not address the issues that are supposed to be included in the status report.
Set continued status conference in approximately 30 to 45 days. Parties are to file the required joint status report form not less than two weeks prior to the continued status conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 14, 2017:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no.101.
2:00 PM
3/25/17 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference -- June 13, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- May 30, 2017
L/D to designate experts and exchange reports -- May 15, 2017 L/D to exchange responsive reports -- June 12, 2017
5/26/17 -- Court granted motion to extend June 12 deadline to June 19 and continued status conference to June 27, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 13, 2017.
6/12/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 11, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 27, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for July 11, 2017:
Parties were to exchange expert witness reports. They did not need to file them. On May 16, 2017, Court reopened discovery for a period of 60 days from that date to permit the parties to conduct additional discovery related to the website www.baddocjjm.com. Are the parties on track to complete that discovery by July 15?
Set deadline for the completion of expert discovery. Has all other discovery been completed?
Set pretrial conference and deadline for lodging joint pretrial order. Discuss with parties form of proposed pretrial order.
8/15/17 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: L/D to complete expert discovery -- September 15, 2017
Cont'd status conference -- October 31, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. L/D to file joint status report -- October 17, 2017
Tentative Ruling for October 31, 2017:
In light of court's rulings in related matters, when does plaintiff anticipate that
2:00 PM
he will be ready for trial.
2/6/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 13, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for March 13, 2018:
Continue status conference to March 20, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion on calendar for that date and time. Where is status report that should have been filed two weeks before status conference?
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 13, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for June 27, 2018:
Continue status conference to date of hearing on OSC (August 16, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.)
Tentative Ruling for August 16, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on OSC.
Tentative Ruling for September 27, 2018:
Continue status conference to a date after neutral expert should have filed his initial status report.
Tentative Ruling for December 11, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
12/10/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to January 8, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 11, 2018. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for January 8, 2019:
2:00 PM
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on matter no. 209.
3/6/19 -- Court continued hearing to April 2, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with related matters on calendar for that date and time.
Tentative Ruling for April 2, 2019:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matters on calendar.
Tentative Ruling for June 11, 2019:
For reasons set forth in tentative ruling for matter no. 7, strike Baker's answer to complaint and enter judgment for plaintiff and take status conference off calendar. Plaintiff should lodge proposed form of judgment.
Final Ruling for June 11, 2019:
Court held that it would be more appropriate for plaintiff to file a motion for default judgment once Baker's answer has been stricken than for the court to grant summary judgment summarily. Court extended deadline for plaintiff to file motion for default judgment to December 2, 2019.
What is the status of this matter? What progress has been made with regard to the turnover of records from the neutral expert to the plaintiff? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2019:
What is the status of this matter? What progress has been made with regard to the turnover of records from the neutral expert to the plaintiff?
11/18/19 -- At plaintiff's request, Court continued status conference to December 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters set for hearing at that date and time. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to date that can be used for hearing on motion for default judgment (which must be filed by March 20, 2020).
Final Ruling for December 3, 2019:
Continue status conference to March 31, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff should file and serve a unilateral status report not later than March 17, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 31, 2020:
Where is the status report that plaintiff should have filed by March 17? Why hasn't counsel for plaintiff filed stipulation with Mr. Broom or lodged order resolving motion for turnover? Hearing required.
Status report filed on March 27, 2020. Court received copy on March 30, 2020. It now appears that plaintiff has abandoned any attempts to obtain information from Mr. Broom and plans to file yet another motion that he believes will enable him to maintain the information that he desires. Has that motion been filed and, if so, when is it set for hearing? Court still needs the order that plaintiff was to lodge in connection with turnover motion. Court will not want to rule on that motion until it has memorialized in an order its prior ruling on the latest turnover motion.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar. Discuss with parties plaintiff's request for a further extension of deadline to file motion for default judgment.
7/2/20 -- Court approved scheduling order setting continued status conference for July 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., requiring parties to file joint status report by July 7, 2020 and extending the deadline for plaintiff to file a default judgment motion to July 31, 2020.
Tentatlve Ruling for July 21, 2020:
2:00 PM
Revisit status of action after conclusion of related matter on calendar.
8/4/20 -- Court approved scheduling order extending deadline to file default judgment motion to October 30, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 27, 2020:
Continue status conference to date of hearing on one or more of the motions that plaintiff plans to file.
Tentative Ruling for December 15, 2020:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on related matter.
1/12/21 -- At hearing held this date, Court continued status conference to April 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 2, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for April 27, 2021:
Discuss with parties the prospect of extending the discovery cutoff and continuing the deadline for the filing of a motion for default judgment.
5/3/21 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd status conference August 17, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Status report waived
L/D to complete discovery -- July 6, 2021
L/D to file motion for default judgment -- July 27, 2021
L/D to have motion for default judgment heard -- August 17, 2021 at 2:00
Debtor(s):
CLARK WARREN BAKER Represented By
Alan F Broidy - DISBARRED - Baruch C Cohen
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
CLARK WARREN BAKER Represented By Jessica Ponce
Plaintiff(s):
James Murtagh Represented By David P Bleistein Lisa Hiraide Douglas M Neistat Michael J Conway Derek Linke Derek A Newman
Trustee(s):
Sam S Leslie (TR) Represented By Carolyn A Dye
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
FR. 7-15-21
Docket 7
NONE LISTED -
Matter first set for hearing on July 15, 2021. Agreement was not attached to the form, as required, and is a lease. Therefore, assumption or rejection is the appropriate remedy, not reaffirmation. Court continued hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give debtor an opportunity to contact lessor to discuss assumption and ask that lessor send appropriate form. (Court approval is not required for a lease assumption.)
What, if anything, has transpired since July 15, 2021 with regard to this matter? If debtor does not appear, deny approval of agreement on the ground that reaffirmation is not applicable to debtor's obligations under a lease.
Debtor(s):
Elizabeth Graciano Represented By Omar Zambrano
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
FR. 7-15-21
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
Matter first set for hearing on July 15, 2021. Court continued hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give debtor an opportunity to contact lender to attempt to negotiate a lower interest rate. (Interest rate is currently 23.46%, and court will not approve a reaffirmation agreement with such an interest rate.)
What, if anything, has transpired since July 15, 2021 with regard to this matter? If debtor does not appear, deny approval of agreement on the ground that reaffirmation is not in debtor's best interest and would present an undue hardship.
Debtor(s):
Sherry Joniff Solomon Represented By Elena Steers
Joint Debtor(s):
Dana Solomon Represented By Elena Steers
Trustee(s):
David M Goodrich (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 113
NONE LISTED -
Grant motion. Waive appearances. Trustee is authorized to upload order consistent with tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
Eun Ho Kim Represented By
Simon S Chang Donald E Iwuchuku
Movant(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Christian T Kim Ann Chang James A Dumas Jr
10:00 AM
Docket 399
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/13/21 - Thomas Casey, (949)766-8787
8/16/21 - David Jacob, 213)293-5931
Court approved a settlement with BOBS by order entered May 3, 2021, which gives BOBS standing to object to claims. Contrary to the representation made in the motion, an objection to allowance of movant's claim HAS been filed and is pending. A hearing is set on that claim objection for September 1, 2021.
Even if the claim had already been allowed (which it hasn't), there is a process for the payment of unsecured claims in a chapter 7 bankruptcy. Claims do not get paid until objections are resolved and the trustee completes the case closing process. Creditors will receive whatever pro rata distributions may be available promptly after the court approves the trustee's final report.
Deny motion.
8/17/21 -- Court approved stipulation resolving motion and claim objection. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Gennady Moshkovich Represented By
David R Haberbush
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Yana Tammakh Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:00 AM
Docket 22
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/13/21 - Nancy Zamora, (213)709-3411 8/13/21 - Reilly Wilkinson, (949)263-8757 8/17/21 - Steffanie Stelnick, (213)289-5735 8/17/21 - Shaniqua Williams
Grant motion. Approve compromise.
Debtor(s):
Bird's Estate, LLC Represented By
Sanaz Sarah Bereliani
Movant(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Nancy H Zamora
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Nancy H Zamora
10:00 AM
Docket 20
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/17/21 - Carmela Pagay, (310)229-1234
Debtor has acted in bad faith by failing to disclose transfers of interests in the house in the year preceding the bankruptcy in his statement of financial affairs. These transfers resulted in a net loss of 16.67% of the property (from 50 percent to 33.33 percent). It is far from clear that the debtor has sufficient disposable income to fund a chapter 13 plan based on his own earnings, and it does not appear that the debtor needs to be in chapter 13 because the loan is in default. The purpose of the chapter 13 is to prevent the chapter 7 trustee from prosecuting a fraudulent transfer action.
Court will not adjudicate the merits of the fraudulent transfer action in connection with a motion to convert. Continue the hearing on the motion approximately 30 days and direct the parties to confer with regard to the prospect of a consensual resolution of their respective disputes.
Debtor(s):
Aaron Viet Lao Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
Aaron Viet Lao Represented By Christopher J Langley Christopher J Langley
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By Carmela Pagay
10:00 AM
fr. 6-16-21, 7-14-21
Docket 242
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/13/21 - Robert Kors, (310)614-8754 8/13/21 - Mark Shinderman, (424)386-4411 8/17/21 - Peter Gulhuly, (213)891-8720
8/17/21 - John Pyun (213)891-8807
Continue hearing for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to assess whether or not to support this motion.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
6/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
William N Lobel
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
10:00 AM
Docket 44
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling from March 31, 2021:
Court recognizes that the debtor has appealed the January 22, 2021 state court judgment in favor of the Unatins and claims that entry of judgment in the Unatins' favor constituted a great miscarriage of justice. Nevertheless, the court takes judicial notice that a jury of 12 people, after a six-week jury trial, found in a lengthy and detailed verdict form that the Unatins were entitled to judgment in their favor on their claims against the debtor for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and conversion and that the debtor's wrongful acts were done with malice, oppression and/or fraud. The state court also issued a statement of decision describing the jury's findings as follows: "On Verdict Form 1, the jury found in favor of Mrs. Unatin and against Mr. Gavrielli on all of her claims: breach of fiduciary duty regarding the Company, breach of fiduciary duty regarding the outside investments, fraud, conversion, breach of contract, and breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing. The jury also found that Mr. Gavrielli "engaged in malice, oppression and/or fraud with respect to each of Mrs. Unatin's tort claims."
On these facts, the court is seriously concerned that the debtor cannot be relied upon to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. As a result, it is difficult for the court to defer to the business judgment of the debtor in possession with regard to such matters as the structure of its plan of reorganization or to rely upon the accuracy or adequacy of information
10:00 AM
contained in the debtor's disclosure statement.
The state court findings constitute sufficient cause for this court to appoint a chapter 11 trustee under Bankruptcy Code section 1104. Accordingly, court will issue an order to show cause why a chapter 11 trustee should not be appointed in this chapter 11 case and set a hearing on that order for approximately three to four weeks. Continue hearing on debtor's disclosure statement for approximately 90 to 120 days to give any chapter 11 trustee appointed an opportunity to assess the debtor's financial situation and access to resources and to decide whether he or she supports the plan structure proposed by the debtor or whether he or she believes that more expedited payment arrangements for creditors should be pursued.
NOTE: A large portion of the debtor's response to the Unatins' objection to his disclosure statement is devoted to accusations of wrongdoing on the part of one or both of the Unatins. However, these accusations, even if true, have no tendency to prove that the debtor can be trusted to serve as a fiduciary for the benefit of creditors. Proof that the Unatins have misbehaved does not mean that the debtor hasn't. It is certainly possible that both the debtor and his sister are bad actors. Perhaps the Unatins should not be trusted either, but they aren't trying to serve as debtors in possession in this chapter 11 case.
Final Ruling for March 31, 2021:
Parties and the committee are willing to attempt to mediate their respective disputes. In the interim, the Court will issue OSC re appointment of a trustee and set it for hearing on June 30, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give the parties and the committee an opportunity to try to resolve their respective disputes through mediation.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Tentative ruling for March 31, 2021 remains unchanged. Continue hearing on disclosure statement to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 5, 2021.
10:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Continue hearing for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to assess whether or not to support the debtor's plan of reorganization.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
6/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
Movant(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
10:00 AM
fr. 6-16-21, 7-14-21
Docket 308
NONE LISTED -
Continue hearing for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to assess whether or not to support the debtor's plan of reorganization.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
6/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
8/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to September 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 18, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/13/21 - Robert Kors, (310)614-8754 8/13/21 - Mark Shinderman, (424)386-4411 8/16/21 - Richard Wynne, (310)785-4600
8/17/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
8/17/21 - Peter Gulhuly, (213)891-8720
8/17/21 - John Pyun (213)891-8807
Continue status for not less than 30 to 45 days to give trustee appointed an opportunity to acquaint himself/herself with the case.
6/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 14, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 14, 2021.
6/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 18, 2021:
At trustee's request, continue case status conference to September 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with other matters scheduled for that date and time. (No new status report required.)
10:00 AM
With regard to trustee's request that the court set a hearing on September 8, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. for a hearing on interim and monthly fee applications, court is confused. The order granting the debtor's motion and establishing monthly payment procedures (docket no. 103) does not contemplate a hearing when there has been an objection to a monthly fee application. Instead, the debtor is to pay 80 percent of the undisputed amount of the fees and 100 percent of the costs and the court is to consider any disputed amounts at the next interim fee hearing or at such other time as may be noticed by the professional whose monthly fee application was the subject of an objection. If the trustee wants final fee applications to be heard on October 13, 2021, wouldn't it make more sense to have the pending applications and objections heard at that time?
Debtor(s):
Kfir Gavrieli Represented By
Jeffrey M. Reisner Kerri A Lyman William N Lobel
10:00 AM
fr. 3-10-21, 4-7-21, 5-5-21, 7-7-21, 7-28-21
Docket 42
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/29/21 - Caroline R. Djang, (949)263-6586 8/9/21 - A. Maria Plumtree, (562)594-3911
Tentative Ruling from March 10, 2021:
It is not the case that appointment of a trustee moots this motion. Debtor only owns a portion of the title to the affected real property as a tenant in common. There are three other owners who are not in bankruptcy. The receiver was not appointed for the debtor. The receiver was appointed to take charge of the property. It makes no sense to have the receiver controlling three of the undivided interests in the property and the debtor's trustee controlling the other. If there are concerns about the choice of Mr. Leslie as the receiver, the court will grant relief from stay to permit the trustee that the court will appoint in response to the motion on calendar as number 4 to litigate those concerns on behalf of the debtor, should he or she elect to do so.
Final Ruling from March 10, 2021:
Court appointed trustee in response to related motion. Court continued hearing on this motion to April 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give the trustee an opportunity to consider his/her position with regard to this motion. Order continuing hearing should clarify that receiver may remain in possession
10:00 AM
pending outcome of the hearing on this motion.
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Trustee requests a continuance to July 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and that the status quo be maintained in the interim. Grant trustee's request. Continue hearing to July 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Authorize receiver to remain in possession in the interim. (Counsel for receiver should lodge order to this effect.)
Movant objects and claims that the trustee should abandon the estate's interest in the real property. But that is not the relief requested by this motion. If the movant would like the trustee to abandon the property and the trustee is not willing to do so, the lender should bring a motion to compel abandonment. The granting of a motion to permit the lender to remain in possession would not amount to the abandonment of the estate's interest in the property, nor would it result in termination of the automatic stay. It would simply permit the receiver to remain as the custodian of the property while the trustee continues to administer the estate.
NOTE: Movant complains that the co-tenants are demanding concessions in exchange for their willingness to convey their interests to the estate, but what obligation do they have to convey these interests to the estate? The trustee could no doubt file an adversary proceeding under section 363(h), but that would entail expense and delay.
6/28/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and excusing receiver from turnover in the interim. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 7, 2021.
7/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and excusing receiver from turnover in the interim. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 28, 2021.
10:00 AM
8/6/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. and excusing receiver from turnover in the interim. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 18, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III- Represented By
Marsha A Houston Christopher O Rivas
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
Docket 280
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/29/21 - Caroline R. Djang, (949)263-6586 8/9/21 - A. Maria Plumtree, (562)594-3911 8/13/21 - Ed Hays, (949)413-7223
8/4/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to September 1, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 18, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Stuart Rubin Represented By
Sean A OKeefe Evan L Smith
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
Docket 322
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/29/21 - Caroline R. Djang, (949)263-6586 8/9/21 - A. Maria Plumtree, (562)594-3911
8/4/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 18, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
Docket 324
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/29/21 - Caroline R. Djang, (949)263-6586 8/9/21 - A. Maria Plumtree, (562)594-3911
8/4/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 18, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
7/29/21 - Caroline R. Djang, (949)263-6586 8/9/21 - A. Maria Plumtree, (562)594-3911
Continue status conference to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (same date and time as hearing on motion to excuse receiver) as a holding date. No new status report is required for that status conference. Appearances waived on July 7, 2021.
7/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 28, 2021.
8/4/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 18, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
10:00 AM
Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
10:00 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Continue case status conference to September 1, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with petitioners' motion to revoke Subchapter V election and appoint chapter 11 trustee. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 18, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Advanced Environmental Group Represented By
Leslie A Cohen
Trustee(s):
Gregory Kent Jones (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Continue case status conference to September 1, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with matters in related chapter 11 case. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 18, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Represented By
Leslie A Cohen
Trustee(s):
CASE REOP/CONV/OR CLOSED Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 26
7/9/21 - Case Converted to Chapter 7.
COURT WILL PREPARE ORDER TAKING MATTER OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT. (CASE HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7.)
Debtor(s):
Community Therapies Represented By John D Faucher
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
10:00 AM
Docket 1
7/9/21 - Case Converted to Chapter 7.
Case has been converted to chapter 7. Off calendar. If court wants to schedule a case status conference, it will notify parties.
Debtor(s):
Community Therapies Represented By John D Faucher
Trustee(s):
Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
10:00 AM
Docket 12
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/17/21 - Martin Phillips, (714)282-2432 8/17/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Vacate OSC. Debtor has now filed missing documents. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED. COURT WILL PREPARE ORDER.
Debtor(s):
Gary John Neville Represented By
Dennis E McGoldrick
Trustee(s):
Moriah Douglas Flahaut (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/17/21 - Martin Phillips, (714)282-2432 8/17/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Did the debtor serve the order setting scheduling and case management conferene as required by page 3, paragraph 1, of that order (entered July 2, 2021)? Where is the status report that should have been filed 14 days before the status conference pursuant to paragraph 2 of that order?
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Gary John Neville Represented By
Dennis E McGoldrick
Trustee(s):
Moriah Douglas Flahaut (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearances by:
8/10/21 - Louis J. Esbin, (661)305-8995
8/17/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Tentative Ruling for December 4, 2019:
Debtor owns 80 percent of the Real Property as a tenant in common with whom? Do the managing member's parents own the other 20 percent as joint tenants? And the debtor itself is 80 percent owned by George Gabriel and 20 percent owned by his father? When was the deed of trust held by Tymeout recorded in the first place? What were the proceeds of the loan used for?
Set bar date and deadline for serving notice of bar date.
12/11/19 -- Court approved order setting following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- 12/13/19
Bar date -- 1/31/20
Cont'd case status conference -- 03/04/20 at 11:00 a.m. L/D to file updated case status report -- 02/21/20.
Tentative Ruling for March 4, 2020:
Status report was filed late (on February 27, 2020). Discuss with debtor
10:00 AM
pending litigation in state court concerning the parties' respective priorities. Set deadline for debtor to commence litigation in this court to resolve these issues. Explore whether ordering the parties to mediation would be useful.
Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 1, 2020:
What is currently happening at the property? Who is collecting rents? Are tenants paying rent? Did debtor seek and obtain any stays pending appeal? Hearing required.
NOTE: There are a number of inaccurate or misleading statements in the case status report. For example, there is no mention made of the prior in rem order for relief.
Instead, the report makes it appear that the first time Tymeout obtained relief from stay was in the April 28, 2020 order, which was not the case. And the statement that the debtor, "of course" obtained a stay of the foreclosure proceedings by filing this case is inconsistent with the court's prior rulings in this matter.
Tentative Ruling for October 7, 2020:
Discuss with the parties whether to grant the debtor's request that the debtor and Tymeout be ordered to mediation. Hearing required.
10/16/20 -- Court approved order directing parties to complete a day of mediation not later than January 5, 2021 and setting the following additional dates:
Cont'd case status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 L/D to file updated case status report -- December 27, 2020
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- October 26, 2020. (If Tymeout fails to cooperate in selection of mediator, debtor may file declaration to this effect and lodge unilateral order appointing mediators of its choosing. If Tymeout fails to participate in mediation, debtor should file declaration to this effect and court will issue an order to show cause why Tymeout should not be held in contempt.)
11/13/20 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
10:00 AM
Court has not approved a settlement agreement, so it is not in a position to issue an order to show cause why someone should, or should not, be held in breach of that agreement. The debtor is a party to the proposed agreement. Does it intend to seek court approval of the agreement? If not, why not? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2021:
At debtor's request, continue case status conference to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give escrow an opportunity to close and debtor an opportunity to request dismissal of this case. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON APRIL 7, 2021.
(NOTE: Court signed order granting motion for approval of global compromise on April 2, 2021.)
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Case needs to be dismissed, but not until escrow has closed. At debtor's request, continue status conference to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give escrow an opportunity to close. Debtor should file updated status report not later than August 6, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 16, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 18, 2021:
Case needs to be dismissed, but not until escrow has closed. At debtor's request, continue status conference to October 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to give escrow an opportunity to close. Debtor should file updated status report not later than October 13, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 18, 2021; however, if debtor
would prefer that court issue OSC why parties have not performed and set a hearing on the OSC for October 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. instead, counsel may appear and request such relief.
Debtor(s):
Grandview Hills LLC Represented By Louis J Esbin
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
fr. 12-16-20, 3-17-21, 5-12-21
Docket 37
NONE LISTED -
12/7/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 16, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Court is confused. The basis for the motion to dismiss appears to be movant's belief that it would have been able to file an adversary proceeding to bar debtor's discharge based on false oaths (under section 727(a)(4)) had it done so in a timely manner or that it holds a claim that is excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(7). But movant did not bring an action objecting to the debtor's discharge in a timely manner and it is now too late to do so. And why does the existence of a nondischargeable debt mean that this case should be dismissed? Where is the cause for dismissal? If the debtor failed to disclose assets in her schedules and actually still owns any of these undisclosed assets (which she denies), the trustee can pursue them.
Why would dismissal of the case on these facts be in the best interest of creditors?
Deny motion.
3/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 17, 2021.
11:00 AM
5/6/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 6, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 18, 2021:
Movant has withdrawn its request for dismissal, but still seeks to have its debt excepted from the discharge pursuant to section 523(a)(7). Debts of the kind described in section 523(a)(7) are not discharged and creditor need not commence a proceeding of any kind to achieve this result. Is there actually a dispute of some kind between the parties as to whether or not this section is applicable? Court cannot take judicial notice of the nature of the damages awarded to movant under the judgment and there is insufficient evidence in the record for the court to make any findings on this issue.
Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Jeannette Yvette Martello Pro Se
Movant(s):
California Department of Managed Represented By
Heather Messenger Christoopher B. Lee
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
11:00 AM
fr. 10-15-14, 10-29-14, 11-5-14, 1-14-15, 5-20-15, 7-22-15, 10-14-15, 2-10-16,
2-24-16, fr. 3-30-16, 5-11-16, 8-3-16, 9-14-16, 9-28-16, 12-14-16, 2-1-17,
5-3-17, 6-7-17, 8-2-17, 8-30-17, 2-28-18, 7-18-18, 9-5-18, 10-24-18, 11-28-18,
12-19-18, 6-19-19, 12-18-19, 3-18-20, 7-22-20, 10-21-20, 12-16-20, 4-7-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Several parties appear interested in purchasing the debtor's real properties. Debtor should notice sales of these properties subject to overbid even without having first selected a stalking horse bidder. Interested parties competing with one another to purchase these properties should produce highest and best offer as among current prospective purchasers. Set deadline for debtor to bring motion for approval of sales of all properties. Court will enter order appointing trustee if motion to approve sale is not brought by deadline imposed by the Court.
8/3/15 -- Court signed scheduling order setting following dates:
Cont'd hearing on motion to appoint trustee and for relief from stay -- October 14, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.
L/D to file and serve motion for authority to sell Albany Properties -- August 12, 2015
L/D to file application to employ broker(s) (or include within sale motion) -- August 12, 2015
Sale hearing -- October 14, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for October 14, 2015:
11:00 AM
If Albany sale closes, will debtor be in a position to file plan? Hearing required.
1/4/16 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 24, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 6, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2016:
If Albany sale closes, will debtor be in a position to file plan? Hearing required.
3/21/16 -- Court signed order continuing hearing to May 11, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 30, 2016.
4/25/16 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 3, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 11, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for August 3, 2016:
According to the docket, the parties settled this matter during a settlment conference held June 13, 2016 before Judge Jury. What has happened since then? Will there be an amended plan? What is the status of this matter?
Tentative Ruling for September 14, 2016:
Continue to September 28, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. to be heard concurrently with substantive motions set for hearing at that date and time. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for September 28, 2016:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearings on related matters.
Tentative Ruling for December 14, 2016:
11:00 AM
Continue to February 1, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with hearing on amended disclosure statement. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 14, 2016.
Tentative Ruling for February 1, 2017:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of hearing on disclosure statement.
4/26/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 7, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 3, 2017. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
6/2/17 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 2, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 7, 2017.
Tentative Ruling for August 30, 2017:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of confirmation hearing.
Tentative Ruling for February 28, 2018:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Page 6 of that report states that all class 6 claimants have received payments other than Jeffrey Thomas. Has the reorganized debtor been depositing payments on account of this disputed claim into a disputed claim reserve? Hearing required.
7/16/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to September 5, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 8, 2018.
8/31/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 24, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 5, 2018.
10/18/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to November 28, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 24, 2018.
11/21/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to December 19,
11:00 AM
2018 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR OCTOBER 24, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for December 19, 2018:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue case status conference to June 19, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report, accompanied by declaration, not later than June 5, 2019. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 19, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for June 19, 2019:
The plan confirmation hearing was August 30, 2017, yet debtor's counsel still has not filed his final fee application. Why not? Is there any reason for this delay? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for December 18, 2019:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to March 18, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than March 4, 2020.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 18, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for March 18, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to July 22, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than July 10, 2020. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 18, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for July 22, 2020:
According to the reorganized debtor's status report, debtor is delinquent on payments due McHugh for the class 2, 3 and 4 claims "for the month of April 2020." What about the months of May, June and July? Is the reorganized debtor also delinquent on the payments for those months? Has the debtor had any discussions with the holder of these claims and, if so, have the
11:00 AM
parties agreed to anything? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for July 22, 2020:
Parties are in negotiations about a forebearance. Continue hearing to October 21, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report by October 9, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Status report was filed late. The emails attached to the status report predate the last status conference. What, if anything, has been accomplished with regard to the McHugh negotiations since the July status conference? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for October 21, 2020:
Continue hearing to December 16, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file and serve updated status report by December 4, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for December 16, 2020:
Court has reviewed the reorganized debtor's case status report. Continue status conference to April 7, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated case status report not later than March 26, 2021.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON DECEMBER 16, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for April 7, 2021:
Where is status report that should have been filed by March 26, 2021? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for April 7, 2021:
Continue case status conference to August 18, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report by August 6, 2021.
11:00 AM
Tentative Ruling for August 18, 2021:
Court has reviewed reorganized debtor's status report. Continue case status conference to December 15, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Reorganized debtor should file updated status report, accompanied by declaration, not later than December 3, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 18, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Albany Investment Properties, LLC Represented By
Raymond H. Aver
R Alexander Comley
11:00 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling for May 26, 2021:
Does the debtor contemplate proposing and confirming a plan that pays all creditors in full? If not, what are the debtor's intentions with regard to recovery of the fraudulent transfer of $300,000 to OFD and how can the debtor justify not attempting to generate revenue by renting the property to a paying tenant? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for May 26, 2021:
Debtor anticipates proposing 100 percent plan. Continue status conference to August 18, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Debtor should file updated status report by August 6, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 18, 2021:
Continue case status conference to September 15, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with debtor's disclosure statement. (No new status report will be required.) APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 18, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Hilmore LLC Represented By
Crystle Jane Lindsey Daniel J Weintraub
11:00 AM
2:00 PM
Docket 198
NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Creditors Specialty Service, Inc. Represented By Neil C Evans
Trustee(s):
Rosendo Gonzalez (TR) Represented By David Seror
Jessica L Bagdanov
2:00 PM
Docket 72
NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
SCC Transport, Inc. Represented By
W. Derek May
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By Daniel H Reiss Jeffrey L Sumpter
2:00 PM
Docket 148
NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Rebecca Primicias Prudencio Represented By Joseph C Rosenblit
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 116
NONE LISTED -
Approve trustee's final report in full. APPEARANCES WAIVED. TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE.
Debtor(s):
Valley Equities, LLC Represented By
Richard L. Sturdevant
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Represented By
John N Tedford IV Brad Krasnoff
2:00 PM
[Fees requested: $4,200.00, Expenses: $320.00]
Docket 170
ZoomGov Appearances by:
8/10/21 - Samuel Boyamian, (310)271-6223
Grant application. Allow on a final basis fees of $14,900 and costs of $480. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due on pro rata basis from available funds. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO LODGE ORDER(S) GRANTING APPLICATION(S) ON TERMS CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Marco General Construction, Inc. Represented By
Michael Jay Berger
Movant(s):
Jennifer M Liu Represented By Michael Jay Berger
2:00 PM
[Fee: $17,978.50, Expenses: $605.12]
Docket 173
NONE LISTED -
Application is confusing. Court is not able to verify certain of the numbers; however, the following appears to be correct:
Amounts allowed in response to first fee application: $35,250 in fees; and
$1,223.02 in costs.
Amounts allowed in response to second fee application: $26,180.50 in fees; and $515.09 in costs.
(Therefore, total previously allowed -- $61,430.50 in fees; and $1,738.11 in costs.)
In this application, counsel seeks allowance of additional fees of $17,978.50 and costs of $605.12. Therefore, grant application. Allow on a final basis a total of $79,409 in fees and $2,343.23 in costs. Ratify payments made to date and authorize payment of remaining balance due. APPEARANCES WAIVED. APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO UPLOAD ORDER CONSISTENT WITH TENTATIVE RULING.
Debtor(s):
Marco General Construction, Inc. Represented By
Michael Jay Berger
2:00 PM
Movant(s):
Marco General Construction, Inc. Represented By
Michael Jay Berger
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:17-01522 Jeffrey J. Bitetti, individually and as Trustee of v. Bren
Complaint by Jeffrey J. Bitetti against Steven M. Bren
fr. 1-9-18, 4-10-18, 6-26-18, 9-27-18, 10-9-18, 1-15-19, 4-16-19, 5-28-19,
9-17-19, 11-19-19, 1-14-20, 2-11-20, 3-10-20, 3-31-20, 4-28-20, 9-22-20,
12-22-20, 3-23-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
9/25/18 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to October 9, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 27, 2018.
Tentative Ruling for October 9, 2018:
Revisit status of action after conclusion of hearing on motion for summary judgment.
1/9/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing discovery cutoff to April 30, 2019 and continuing status conference to April 16, 2019 at 2 pm. OFF
CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 15, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for April 16, 2019:
Are the parties on track to complete their discovery by April 30, 2019? Where is the joint status report that should have been filed two weeks before the status conference?
Set deadline for filing any additional pretrial motions, and set date for pretrial conference. Discuss with the parties whether it would be appropriate to send
10:00 AM
this matter to mediation.
4/15/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing status conference to May 28, 2019. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for May 28, 2019:
Where is the joint status report that should have been filed two weeks before the status conference?
6/6/19 -- Court approved scheduling order setting following dates: Pretrial conference -- September 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to lodge pretrial order -- September 3, 2019 L/D to complete discovery -- June 11, 2019
L/D to lodge order appointing mediators -- June 21, 2019 L/D to file pretrial motions -- August 27, 2019
L/D to complete mediation -- September 17, 2019 6/6/19 -- Court approved order appointing mediators.
6/11/19 -- Court approved stipulation setting following dates: Discovery cutoff of June 11, 2019 is modified in following respects: Bren may serve written responses to discovery requests by June 24, 2019; Bitetti may take Bren's deposition not later than September 16, 2019; Plaintiff may file discovery motions related to the foregoing responses by September 16, 2019.
8/28/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to November 19, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.; extending discovery cutoff to the extent necessry to permit Bitetti to take Bren's deposition by November 18, 2019; and extending deadline for filing pretrial motions to November 18, 2019.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2019.
11/4/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to January 14, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.; extending discovery cutoff to the extent necessry to permit Bitetti to take Bren's deposition by January 13, 2020; and extending deadline for filing pretrial motions to January 13, 2020.
10:00 AM
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2019.
1/8/20 -- Court approved stipulation setting following continued dates: Cont'd pretrial conference -- February 11, 2020 at 2
L/D for Bitetti to take Bren's deposition -- February 10, 2020 L/D to file pretrial motions -- February 10, 2020
OFF CALENDAR FOR JANUARY 14, 2020. PARTIES SHOULD LODGE JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO CONTINUED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE.
1/23/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 10, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., extending discovery cutoff to March 9, 2020 for limited purposes, extending deadline for filing pretrial motions to March 9, 2020 and ordering parties to lodge joint pretrial order not later than February 25, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2020.
2/26/20 -- Court approved stipulation continuing pretrial conference to March 31, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., extending discovery cutoff to March 23, 2020 for limited purposes, extending deadline for filing pretrial motions to March 23, 2020 and ordering parties to lodge joint pretrial order not later than February 25, 2020. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 10, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for March 31, 2020:
Continue pretrial conference to April 28, 2020at 2:00 p.m. PARTIES SHOULD LODGE A SINGLE JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER not later than Apri
14, 2020. Mr. Altagen should participate personally in negotiations concerning the form of the pretrial order. Parties may break the "admitted facts" portion of the pretrial order into two separate parts: (1) facts that have already been adjudicated by the court and therefore require no proof; and (2) facts that are admitted (and therefore require no proof). If the parties disagree about whether something is or is not an issue, that dispute should be preserved in the pretrial order as well. In other words, under the appropriate list of issues (either issues of law or issues of fact), the parties should include an issue that reads, "whether plaintiff must prove . . . . " If the
10:00 AM
parties persist in lodging separate pretrial orders, the court will review the relevant declarations and orders and assess monetary sanctions as against any party that it considers to have behaved in an unreasonable manner in connection with the drafting of the document.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 31, 2020.
-----------------------------------
Tentative Ruling for April 28, 2020:
Court has a number of questions and concerns with regard to the form of the pretrial order that it will discuss with parties on the record at the time of the pretrial conference.
8/3/20 -- Court continued trial to December 22, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. and related trial deadlines. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2020.
11/9/20 -- Court continued trial to March 23, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and related trial deadlines. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 22, 2020.
2/9/21 -- Court continued trial to August 24, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and related trial deadlines. OFF CALENDAR FOR MARCH 23, 2021.
8/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation dismissing action without prejudice. OFF CALENDAR. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Steven M Bren Represented By Robert S Altagen
Defendant(s):
Steven M. Bren Represented By Robert S Altagen
10:00 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Jeffrey J. Bitetti, individually and as Represented By
Roger F Friedman
Trustee(s):
Howard M Ehrenberg (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Ryan D O'Dea
Rika Kido
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Docket 519
NONE LISTED -
Final Ruling from January 12, 2021:
Court rejected claimants' argument that damages arising from the debtor's abandonment of the lease, as represented by the state court judgment, are not capped by 502(b)(6). Judge Neiter calculated the maximum amount of damage for lease termination damages under section 502(b)(6) and this amount will not increase because the state court judgment came out higher. There is nothing to litigate on these issues. Judge Neiter's order capping the damages at $1,066,000 remains the law of the case.
Judge Neiter did not enter an order that was intended to be final on the issue of the extent to which the legal fees should be included within the cap (i.e., the 90/10 split). Give parties an opportunity to conduct discovery before court conducts an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
State court's decision to make an award of fees and costs jointly and severally in favor of Melrose and Simantob does not make the cap of section 502(b)(6) inapplicable. With regard to both claimants, court will need to determine extent to which fees relate to litigation over lease termination damages (and are therefore within cap) and extent to which fees relate to other disputes (and are therefore not capped).
Court set a discovery cutoff of May 28, 2021 with regard to the attorneys' fees and costs component of the claim.
10:00 AM
Court ordered parties to brief whether or not cap of section 502(b)(6) would still apply to the claim if claimant asserts that it was defrauded into entering into the lease and whether the determination made by the state court that claimant's fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitation should be given preclusive effect in this contested matter. Court instructed parties to file simultaneous briefs on these issues not later than February 3, 2021 and instructed them to file reply briefs not later than February 16, 2021. Court set a continued hearing for February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
The fraud claim that Melrose seeks to assert is that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease. Its damage claims therefore remain subject to the 502(b)(6) cap. The additional tort theory of recovery does not change the amount of the damage that may be allowed as against the estate. (See tentative ruling for matter no. 103 as to whether a claim in excess of this amount may be asserted against the debtors on the theory that it is nondischargeable.)
Therefore, the only remaining issues to be resolved in the context of this claim objection are the allocation of attorneys' fees as between the capped and uncapped portion of the claim and the interest accrual calculation (and whether interest can accrue from and after November 21, 2013 on fees that were incurred after this date or whether interest should start to accrue on the later of November 21, 2013 and the date on which the relevant fees were incurred or awarded).
The portion of the fees attribuable to litigation over lease termination damages is within the cap (and therefore will not be allowed). The portion that is attributable to something other than litigation over the lease termination damages is not within the cap and may therefore be allowed.
Discuss with the parties how to move forward with the resolution of these issues. (Court has already set discovery cutoff of May 28, 2021 with regard to attorneys' fee issues.)
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
10:00 AM
Sustain debtor's evidentiary objections to exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the claimant's request for judicial notice to the extent that claimant seeks to introduce these documents to prove the truth of the contents of the documents. In response to a request for judicial notice (or even sua sponte), court can take judicial notice of the fact that a document was filed. Court can also take judicial notice of admissions made by a party in prior filings with the court, but that is different from admitting the documents to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein.
Parties agree that the relevant interest rate is 5 percent, as that is what the plan provided. With regard to the dates on which interest began to accrue on the attorneys' fees awarded, under Lucky United Properties Investment Inc. v. Lee, 213 Cal. App. 4th (2013), post judgment interest on a fee award runs from the date the amount of the fee award is fixed, not from the date of the original judgment. Therefore, interest on the amounts awarded for fees incurred at trial begins to accrue on the date the trial fees order was entered (June 14, 2018) and interest on the amounts awarded for fees incurred in connection with the appeal begins to accrue on the date the appellate fees were awarded (November 12, 2020). Sustain objection to the extent that claimant seeks to bar claimant from recovering interest on its attorneys' fees for any period prior to these dates.
Are parties on track to complete discovery re allocation issues by May 28, 2021? If not, when will the parties be in a position to schedule an evidentiary hearing to resolve allocation issues?
6/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing evidentiary hearing to August 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (See order for revised briefing dates.)
7/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing evidentiary hearing to October 20, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (See order for additional dates.) APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 25, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Ramesh Akhtarzad Represented By
10:00 AM
David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
Joint Debtor(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
Movant(s):
Jack Simantob, 8451 Melrose Represented By Dean G Rallis Jr Kyra E Andrassy Lewis R Landau
Trustee(s):
Thomas C Hebrank (TR) Represented By
J. Barrett Marum Robert K Sahyan Aaron J Malo
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:12-01538 8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad
U.S.C. Sections 523(a)(2)(A) & (B) and 523(a)(6) Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))
fr. 11-18-20, 1-12-21, 2-24-21, 5-25-21, 7-20-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
12/22/20 -- Court approved stipulation confirming that nothing precludes claimants from liquidating the amount of their claim in state court.
Tentative Ruling for January 12, 2021 (to the extent applicable to adversary proceeding):
The fraud claim that Melrose seeks to assert is that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease. Its damage claims therefore remain subject to the 502(b)(6) cap. If Melrose can demonstrate that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the lease (if this claim is not barred by any applicable statute of limitations), the capped claim would become nondischargeable, but the amount of the claim would remain capped to the same extent as its breach of lease claim. The additional tort theory of recovery does not change the amount of the damage. If the capped claim has already been or will be paid in full, there is no need to determine whether or not the claim should be excepted from the discharge.
The court recently approved a stipulation between the parties. Is it their intention to resolve the extent to which a fraud claim is or is not barred by the statute of limitations in state court? Similarly, is it the parties' intention to
10:00 AM
litigate the malicious prosecution claims in state court?
Final Ruling for January 12, 2021 (insofar as it relates to adversary proceeding):
Before it can determine how to adjudicate this adversary proceeding, court needs to resolve the following issues: (1) whether the cap of 502(b)(6) applies to any nondischargeable liability that the debtors may have for fraud in the inducement; and (2) whether the state court's finding that the plaintiff's fraud claim is barred by the statute of limitations should be given preclusive effect in this adversary proceeding.
Parties are to file simultaneous briefs with regard to these issues not later than February 2, 2021. Reply briefs will be due not later than February 16, 2021. Court will conduct a continued hearing on February 24, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Adversary proceeding was never actually dismissed by Judge Neiter. He merely took the hearing off calendar to permit litigation to proceed in state court as between the parties, anticipating that they would return to bankruptcy court once they had reduced the claims to judgment for a determination as to dischargeability. That never happened, as Judge Neither retired and, there being no further hearings on calendar, the court "closed" the adversary proceeding. It was never dismissed. (This is why Judge Bluebond never takes a matter "off calendar" until it has been resolved--so that it will not fall through the cracks.)
This court is bound by the state court's determination as to when the statute of limitations began to run on the plaintiff's fraud claim. According to the state court, the statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff learned that the representations upon which it had relied were untrue, namely on October 22, 2010 when the debtor testified in a deposition that he did not own any property.
This adversary proceeding, including a claim for fraud in the inducement, was
10:00 AM
filed in a timely manner for nondischargeability purposes on April 2, 2012. The underlying state law statute of limitations had not run on the fraud claim as of that date. Conversely, in state court, the plaintiff attempted to add a fraud claim for the first time in is motion to amend complaint in August of 2014. The state court found that the three year statute of limitations had run on October 22, 2013. As this adversary proceeding, including the fraud claims, had been filed by then, there is no statute of limitations problem with this action.
The only authority this Court has been able to locate so far on the issue of whether or not the cap of section 502(b)(6) applies with regard to a nondischargeable claim that may be asserted as against the debtors, as distinguished from a claim that may be asserted against the debtors' estate, is a comment in dicta in a concurrence by former bankruptcy judge Bruce Markell. According to Judge Markell, "claims by landlords for fraud in procuring a lease would be limited by § 502(b)(6)'s limitation on landlords' claims against the estate, with amounts in excess of the limitations being valid against the debtor but unnecessary to the administration of the bankruptcy case.” Deitz v. Ford (In re Deitz), 469 B.R. 11, 29 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012).
The rationale behind limiting the amount of a damage claim for breach of lease (ensuring that the landlord's claim does not dwarf the claims of other creditors, entitling the landlord to a disproportionate share of available assets) does not apply in the context of a nondischargeability action as against the debtor, and section 502(b)(6) appears in a section of the code that discusses allowance of claims against the estate, not in section 523 as a limitation on a debtor's nondischargeable liability. Moreover, the introductory language of section 523 says that a discharge does not discharge an individual debtor "from any debt," not from liability for any allowed claim. There is nothing in the statutory language to suggest that any of the limitations of section 502 on the claims that may be allowed affect the amount of any debt that may be excepted from discharge under section 523.
Therefore, in the absence of authority to the contrary, this Court is inclined to agree with Judge Markell that the cap of 502(b)(6) should not apply to limit the size of a claim that can be asserted as against the debtors outside of the administration of the bankruptcy case. As a result, even if the entirety of the
10:00 AM
plaintiff's allowed claims as against the estate are paid in full, this action is not moot in that the debtors have potential exposure for liability in excess of these amounts, provided an appropriate showing can be made under section 523(a).
The state court judgment determines the amount of the lender's damages, but does not have any bearing on whether or not these amounts can be excepted from the discharge. Set discovery cutoff and schedule continued status conference for approximately 90 days. Explore with parties whether this is an appropriate matter to be sent to mediation at this juncture. (Discuss other issues/problems the court has observed with plaitiff's theories of recovery.)
Final Ruling for February 24, 2021:
Tentative ruling became final ruling: (1) 502(b)(6) cap does not limit amount of nondischargeable liability; (2) there is no statute of limitations problem: this action was filed before the applicable statute of limitations ran; (3) plaintiff is not precluded from attempting to prove that the amount of the state court judgment should be treated as nondischargeable, but it cannot increase the amount of that judgment or add a claim for punitive damages.
Continue status conference to May 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties are to file an updated status report by May 11, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 25, 2021:
Set discovery cutoff for late 2021. Discuss with parties why they don't want this matter sent to mediation.
6/1/21 -- Court approved scheduling order setting discovery cutoff for December 17, 2021. Status conference continued to July 20, 2021 at 10:00
a.m. to coincide with evidentiary hearing. Joint status report due July 6, 2021.
6/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing evidentiary hearing to August 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Continue status conference in adversary proceeding to same date and time. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JULY 20, 2021.
10:00 AM
7/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing evidentiary hearing to October 20, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Continue status conference in adversary proceeding to same date and time. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 25, 2021.
8/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation extending discovery cutoff to February 18, 2022.
Debtor(s):
Ramesh Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
Defendant(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By
John-patrick M Fritz David L. Neale Richard P Steelman Jr
Joint Debtor(s):
Sina Akhtarzad Represented By David L. Neale
John-patrick M Fritz Jeffrey S Kwong Richard P Steelman Jr
Plaintiff(s):
8451 Melrose Property, LLC Represented By Jeffrey I Golden Beth Gaschen Kyra E Andrassy
Michael A. Taitelman
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Lewis R Landau
Thomas C Hebrank (TR) Represented By
J. Barrett Marum Robert K Sahyan Aaron J Malo
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:20-01672 Miller v. SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF DECEMBER 14, 2012 et al
fr. 4-27-21, 6-29-21
Docket 48
NONE LISTED -
Tentative Ruling from April 27, 2021:
Deny motion. Debtor has failed to provide trustee with comprehensible cash flow statements or to adequately explain how funds previously released to Olympic ($445,304.22) have been spent. Debtor claims that funds are needed for past due interest payments to Fan, yet it appears that payments are being made to Fan and others as partnership distributions. And why aren't the rent payments received by Olympic and Clover sufficient to make the required mortgage payments? And why is it appropriate for funds generated by a sale of assets of Olympic to be used to pay expenses attributable to other LLC's? Clearly, the debtor is in the practice of treating the various entities as if they are alter egos of one another, expending resources of one entity for the benefit of another as he sees fit. Debtor has not demonstrated that Olympic needs the requested funds to pay its own ordinary course operating expenses.
Debtor also requests that the funds be released to Olympic to cover future and unexpected obligations of the Olympic or the other entities. How does this make sense? The purpose of the preliminary injunction was to prevent the debtor from dissipating these assets while the trustee litigates whether the assets of these entities should be treated as assets of the debtor's bankruptcy estate. This purpose would be defeated entirely if the debtor were permitted to continue liquidating assets and disbursing the proceeds in
10:00 AM
any manner he sees fit without appropriate oversight to confirm that the expenses in question are legitimate ordinary course operating expenses for the entity whose funds the debtor seeks to expend.
Debtor is correct that no receiver has been appointed for the various entities, but, in light of the way the debtor has been managing these entities, perhaps such an appointment would be appropriate. Has the trustee explored whether there are sufficient grounds to support the appointment of a receiver for these entities?
Final Ruling for April 27, 2021:
Continue hearing to June 29, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Any supplemental declarations and a status report should be filed not later than June 22, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Debtor's June 14, 2021 declaration states, at paragraph 9, that certain expenses need to be paid to bring the Jerry Fan Notes current, as well as other legitimate business expenses of various entities and that a "true and correct copy of these expenses is attached as Exhibit "11" and incorporated by reference." Court assumes that debtor means Exhibit 10, as that is a list of bills. However, the exhibit is not particularly helpful. It does not provide any information whatsoever as to whose expenses these bills are and, as the debtor himself points out, on May 13, 2020, the Superior Court specifically found that "it is correct that Respondent [debtor] has consistently used the assets of Antiquarian Traders and Olympic Holdings as if they were his personal property and bank accounts rather than assets of a trust to which he is not a beneficiary."
Any finding by the state court as to whether the debtor is or is not an alter ego of a particular entity for the purpose of litigation with the debtor's ex-spouse may not be binding on the trustee, who represents the interests of creditors who were not parties to that action. And the question of whether or not the assets of these other entities are assets of the debtor's bankruptcy estate may not be the same issue as whether these entities are the debtor's alter egos under state law.
10:00 AM
Further, where is the evidence as to what is actually due Jerry Fan for what purpose? Has the trustee been able to verify with Fan what amounts are due with regard to secured loans against the property? And has the debtor accounted for the rents being generated by the properties owned by these other entities, which the trustee contends are sufficient to pay the obligations of these entities? It is not helpful to prepare an exhibit that shows only expenses and not receipts and other disbursements by these entities.
6/28/21 -- Court approved order appointing Judge Zive as mediator.
8/16/21 -- Court granted trustee's motion to continue hearing and status conference and continued matters to September 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 26, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
Defendant(s):
MARK ABBEY SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
14257 CHANDLER MANOR LLC Represented By
David S Mayes
17841 PALORA MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
Robert Mayman Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
10:00 AM
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
748 DETROIT MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se
SAVANNAH SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se
Movant(s):
MARK ABBEY SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
748 DETROIT MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
14257 CHANDLER MANOR LLC Represented By
David S Mayes
17841 PALORA MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
Robert Mayman Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
10:00 AM
SAVANNAH SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
Plaintiff(s):
Elissa Miller Represented By
Robyn B Sokol
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
10:00 AM
Adv#: 2:20-01672 Miller v. SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF DECEMBER 14, 2012 et al
fr. 1-26-21, 4-27-21, 6-29-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Continue status conference until after date of anticipated mediation in fall of 2021. Set discovery cutoff for late November, 2021.
8/16/21 -- Court granted trustee's motion to continue hearing and status conference and continued matters to September 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 26, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Debtor(s):
Mark Abbey Slotkin Represented By Leslie A Cohen
10:00 AM
Defendant(s):
MARK ABBEY SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
748 DETROIT MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
14257 CHANDLER MANOR LLC Represented By
David S Mayes
17841 PALORA MANOR LLC Represented By David S Mayes
Robert Mayman Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
TO BE NAMED TRUSTEE OF Represented By David S Mayes
LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se LOREN MARKEN AS TRUSTEE Pro Se
SAVANNAH SLOTKIN Represented By David S Mayes
INTENTIONALLY DEFECTIVE Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
SLOTKIN DEFECTIVE TRUST OF Represented By
David S Mayes
10:00 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Elissa Miller Represented By
Robyn B Sokol
Trustee(s):
Elissa Miller (TR) Represented By Robyn B Sokol Jessica Wellington
10:00 AM
#0.00 All hearings scheduled for today will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov video and audio.
Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided below.
Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges may apply).
Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no pre- registration is required but you must still notify Chambers at Chambers_SBluebond@cacb.uscourts.gov of your appearance". The audio portion of each hearing will be recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.
For more information on appearing before Judge Bluebond by ZoomGov, please see the information on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-sheri-bluebond under the tab, "Telephonic Instructions."
Docket 0
10:00 AM
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
10:00 AM
MOVANT: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC
Docket 30
NONE LISTED -
Motion has been withdrawn by movant. Off calendar. No appearance necessary.
Debtor(s):
Aaron Viet Lao Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By
Sheryl K Ith
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By Carmela Pagay
10:00 AM
MOVANT: EXETER FINANCE, LLC
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Condition continuation of the automatic stay on debtor's willingness to make adequate protection payments.
Debtor(s):
Andres Ramon Jallorina Sr. Represented By Daniel King
Movant(s):
Exeter Finance LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith
Trustee(s):
Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S.C. § 1112(b)
FR. 7-14-21; 7-28-21, 8-11-21
Docket 163
NONE LISTED -
7/2/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 14, 2021.
7/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 11, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 28, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2021:
What has transpired since approval of compromises? Are the parties ready to see this case dismissed? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for August 31, 2021:
What has transpired since last hearing? Are the parties ready to see this case dismissed? Hearing required.
8/25/21 -- Court approved order dismissing case and withdrawing motions. OFF CALENDAR.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Knotting Hill, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
S Double, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
Sefox Investment, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
IJ Properties LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
El Marino, LLC Represented By
Ori S Blumenfeld
10:00 AM
Dismissing Bankruptcy Case Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B)(1), or, in the Alternative,
Granting Relief from the Automatic Stay
fr. 3-17-21, 4-21-21, 6-9-21, 6-16-21, 7-7-21, 7-28-21, 8-11-21
Docket 82
NONE LISTED -
Final Ruling from March 17, 2021:
Continue hearing to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with hearing on debtor's disclosure statement. The court will have a better opportunity to examine whether the debtor is acting in good faith and proceeding diligently with a reorganization of its affairs in the context of evaluating its proposed plan and disclosure statement. No new briefing on this motion will be permitted. Additional briefing as to whether there is a reasonable likelihood of reorganization within a reasonable period should come in the context of the hearing on the debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Having reviewed and analyzed the debtor's proposed plan, the court is left with the distinct impression that, with limited exception, this case is a two- party dispute and that the purpose of the bankruptcy filing was for the debtor to obtain a more favorable forum for the litigation of any remaining disputes with Canico. Grant motion to dismiss as a bad faith filing.
10:00 AM
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 16, 2021:
Parties reported that a settlement has been reached. What is the nature of the agreement? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 7, 2021:
Would Canico and the debtor be entitled to enter into the proposed compromise if this case weren't in bankruptcy? If so, perhaps the motion should be granted and the case dismissed. Discuss with the parties the remedies that would be available to other secured creditors if the case were dismissed. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
If court approves compromises, should this motion be granted? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2021:
What has transpired since approval of compromises? Are the parties ready to see this case dismissed? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for August 31, 2021:
What has transpired since last hearing? Are the parties ready to see this case dismissed? Hearing required.
8/25/21 -- Court approved order dismissing case and withdrawing motions. OFF CALENDAR.
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
Canico Capital Group, LLC Represented By Daniel J McCarthy
10:00 AM
fr. 9-30-20, 1-6-21, 3-3-21, 3-17-21, 4-21-21, 6-9-21, 6-16-21, 7-7-21,
7-28-21, 8-11-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Set deadline for serving notice of bar date and bar date. Continue case status conference for approximately 90 days.
10/6/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with following dates: L/D to serve notice of bar date -- October 7, 2020
Bar date -- December 7, 2020
L/D to file updated status report -- December 28, 2020 Cont'd status conference -- January 6, 2021 at 11:00 a.m.
Tentative Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Where is the status report that should have been filed by December 28, 2020? Hearing required.
Update on January 4, 2021: Court has received status report filed December 29, 2020. Other than submitting to a 2004 examination and serving a notice of bar date, what if any steps toward reorganization have been accomplished since the last status conference and what has to happen before the debtor will be in a position to propose a plan? Hearing required.
Final Ruling for January 6, 2021:
Continue hearing to March 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with hearing on
10:00 AM
creditor's motion to dismiss or in the alternative relief from stay. Waive requirement that new status report be filed for this continued conference.
Tentative Ruling for March 3, 2021:
Creditor noticed hearing on motion to dismiss or in the alternative for relief from stay for March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m Continue case status conference to March 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with that hearing. No new status report required. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON MARCH 3, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for March 17, 2021:
Continue case status conference to April 21, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard concurrently with motion to approve debtor's disclosure statement.
Tentative Ruling for April 21, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
6/7/21 -- Court approved stipulation to continue hearing to June 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 9, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 28, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Tentative Ruling for August 11, 2021:
What has transpired since approval of compromises? Are the parties ready to see this case dismissed? Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for August 31, 2021:
What has transpired since last hearing? Are the parties ready to see this case dismissed? Hearing required.
8/25/21 -- Court approved order dismissing case and withdrawing motions. OFF CALENDAR.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Rhino Bare Projects LLC Represented By Leslie A Cohen Nathan D Meyer
10:00 AM
Docket 3
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Provided debtor provides satisfactory evidence of service, grant motion limiting notice.
Debtor(s):
World Service West/LA Inflight Represented By Christopher Minier
10:00 AM
Docket 2
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
Has debtor filed evidence of service? Both motion and declaration contain merely conclusory statement that paying the amounts contemplated by the motion will not render debtor administratively insolvent. What is the total amount that the debtor will need to pay if the motion is granted? How much cash does the debtor have on hand? Are there projections on file anywhere that reflect the debtor's likely ability to remain in business?
Assuming debtor provides satisfactory responses to foregoing questions, enter order authorizing debtor to pay prepetition wages and honor prepetition benefits up to an aggregate of priority amount per employee, excluding insiders. With regard to insiders, order can provide that, if and when and to the extent that insider compensation has been approved, the debtor is authorized to pay prepetition wages and honor prepetion benefits to/for insiders in accordance with any formula approved through the insider compensation process up to the statutory maximum per employee.
Deny motion insofar as it seeks authority to permit prepetition checks to clear. Debtor must close its bank accounts so that outstanding checks do not clear. To the extent that outstanding checks are for prepetition wages and benefits that would otherwise be covered by the preceding paragraph, debtor should issue new checks to accomplish these payments.
Debtor(s):
World Service West/LA Inflight Represented By
10:00 AM
Christopher Minier
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01177 Bradley, M.D. et al v. Dickens, III
fr. 10-20-20, 2-23-21, 6-1-21, 8-10-21
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Set deadline for defendant to file motion for summary judgment/partial summary adjudication. Continue status conference to date of hearing on that motion. Discuss with parties whether mediation would be helpful in this matter and, if so, when.
10/21/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates:
L/D for plaintiff to file motion for summary judgment and defendant to file motion for judgment on pleadings -- January 12, 2021
Deadlines for oppositions and replies shall be as set forth in the Local Rules (Court corrected order lodged by parties to reflect these deadlines)
Hearing on motions and continued status conference -- February 23, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. (Requirement of filing a status report in connection with that conference is waived.)
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
Do the parties need to conduct any discovery? Set deadlines for completion of discovery and filing of any additional pretrial motions. Schedule pretrial conference and require parties to lodge joint pretrial order not later than two weeks prior to date scheduled for pretrial conference.
2/26/21 -- Court approved order granting in part motion for summary
2:00 PM
adjudication. Judgment granted for plaintiff on first claim for relief ($44,648.66 nondischargeable pursuant to section 532(a)(6)) and denying without prejudice on other claims for relief. Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied. Discovery cutoff set for June 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 1, 2021:
Discovery cutoff is currently June 30, 2021. According to status report, plaintiff expects to complete hnis discovery on/by July 9, 2021. Does plaintiff need an extension of the discovery cutoff?
NOTE: Defendant's lack of consent to the entry of final orders by the bankruptcy court is ineffective here. This is a 523(a)(6) action and is a core proceeding. Court as authority to enter a final judgment.
Set deadline for filing pretrial motions and pretrial conference. Order parties to upload joint proposed pretrial order 14 days before pretrial conference.
Tentative Ruling for August 10, 2021:
Plaintiff filed on July 14, 2021 (using the notice and an opportunity for hearing procedure) a motion for entry of judgment on the first claim for relief and for dismissal of the remaining claims. Continue status conference to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to give court an opportunity to process motion.
APPEARANCES WAIVED ON AUGUST 10, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 31, 2021:
Plaintiff has now filed (on August 26, 2021) a notice of nonopposition with regard to its July 14, 2021 motion to enter a final judgment based on the court's partial summary adjudication and to dismiss the remaining claims (second, third and fourth claims for relief). Defendant filed a belated opposition to this motion on August 27, 2021, explaining that the motion did not specify whether the proposed dismissal would be with or without prejudice and that it was not until plaintiff lodged his proposed forms of order (on August 26, 2021) that defendant realized that the proposed dismissals would be without prejudice. Defendant argues that the dismissals should be with
2:00 PM
prejudice.
First, this is a tempest in a teapot. Any dismissal will effectively end these claims permanently, as the plaintiff is barred by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure from bringing a new dischargeability action with regard to these claims at this point in time. The deadline for filing such claims was 60 days from the date first set for the 341(a) meeting.
Second, the opposition was late-filed. The motion did not specify that the dismissal would be with prejudice. If defendant cared whether the dismissal would be with or without prejudice, he should have filed a timely opposition to the motion.
Overrule objection. Grant motion. Enter judgment in the form lodged by plaintiff declaring that $44,648.66 in santions is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6). Dismiss balance of claims without prejudice. .
Debtor(s):
Harold Winfred Dickens III Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Harold Winfred Dickens III Represented By William T Heywood
Plaintiff(s):
Kenneth S. Bradley, M.D. Represented By Joseph P Fleming
Southern California Pain Represented By Joseph P Fleming
Trustee(s):
Heide Kurtz (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:21-01115 Yoo, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Lao-Lowenstein et al
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Trustee filed stipulation extending time to respond to complaint and requesting continuance of status conference, but where is order approving stipulation? Hearing required.
8/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing deadline to respond to complaint to September 2, 2021 and continuing date of status conference to October 12, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 31, 2021.
Debtor(s):
Aaron Viet Lao Represented By Christopher J Langley
Defendant(s):
Ahn M. Lao-Lowenstein Pro Se
Yen My Lao Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Timothy J. Yoo, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Carmela Pagay
Trustee(s):
Timothy Yoo (TR) Represented By
2:00 PM
Carmela Pagay
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01184 DYE v. de Gallegos et al
Christian de Gallegos
fr. 8-27-19, 11-19-19, 12-17-19, 2-11-20, 6-30-20, 9-15-20, 10-20-20, 2-23-21,
4-27-21, 6-15-21
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/30/21 - Steve Berman, (813)676-7234 8/31/21 - Jeffrey Shinbrot, (424)202-1143
Tentative Ruling for August 27, 2019:
Both parties have indicated a willingness to attend mediation. Discuss with parties the timing of mediation.
Tentative Ruling for November 19, 2019:
Parties report that they have scheduled a mediation for December 9, 2019 with Meredith Jury. Continue status conference to December 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (Parties need not file a new status report prior to that status conference.) APPEARANCES WAIVED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for December 17, 2019:
2:00 PM
Did the parties participate in a mediation before Meredith Jury? If so, was a settlement reached? Hearing required.
12/13/19 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to February 11, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR DECEMBER 17, 2019.
Tentative Ruling for February 11, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for early June, 2020. Set final status conference for shortly before discovery cutoff.
4/22/20 -- Court approved scheduling order with the following dates: Cont'd status conference -- June 30, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
L/D to file joint status report -- June 16, 2020 Discovery cutoff -- July 31, 2020
Tentative Ruling for June 30, 2020:
Set discovery cutoff for late November, 2020. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions. Set final status conference for approximately 90 to 120 days.
6/30/20 -- Court signed scheduling order with following dates: Discovery cutoff -- October 31, 2020
Cont'd status conference -- September 15, 2020 at 2 L/D to file joint status report -- September 1, 2020
L/D to exchange expert witness reports/designate experts -- November 16, 2020
L/D to complete expert discovery -- December 1, 2020
8/28/20 -- Court approved compromise between trustee and defendant Max Charles Moore III resolving all claims against him.
Tentative Ruling for September 15, 2020:
Continue status conference to October 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. to be heard
2:00 PM
concurrently with Trustee's motion for partial summary adjudication. Parties need not file new status report for that conference. OFF CALENDAR FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2020.
Tentative Ruling for October 20, 2020:
Discuss with parties anticipated dates for filing revised motion for partial summary adjudication. Hearing required.
Tentative Ruling for February 23, 2021:
There is a court form for an attachment to the status report for additional parties. In the future, trustee should file a single, collective status report using the main form and the attachment for additional defendants.
Court notes that Jeffrey Elliott has demanded a jury trial. Assuming there is a right to a jury trial that has not been waived, this court will nevertheless handle all pretrial proceedings up through and including pretrial conference before the reference is withdrawn and the matter is returned to the district court for trial. Is there a dispute as to whether Mr. Elliott has a right to a jury trial?
Discuss with parties the timing of motion for summary judgment/partial summary adjudication and pretrial conference. Set deadline for filing pretrial motions.
4/13/21 -- Court approved stipulation modifying its prior scheduling order in the following respects:
L/D to complete discovery -- September 1, 2021
L/D to have pretrial motions heard -- October 1, 2021
L/D to designate experts and exchange expert reports -- October 31, 2021 L/D to complete expert witness discovery -- November 31, 2021.
Status conference continued to June 15, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 27, 2021.
2:00 PM
Tentative Ruling for June 15, 2021:
Continue status conference to date closer to discovery cutoff -- August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Parties should file updated status report not later than August 17, 2021. APPEARANCES WAIVED ON JUNE 15, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 31, 2021:
Are the parties aware of LBR Form F7016-1.Status.Report.Attach? This should be used when there are more than two parties so that all parties may complete a single joint (or collective) status report form.
Is defendant Elliott requesting a further extension of the discovery cutoff? Court notes that Mr. Elliott has not consented to the entry of a final order by the bankruptcy court and demands a jury trial. Discuss mechanics of withdrawal with the parties. Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
Defendant(s):
Christian de Gallegos Represented By Paul A Beck
Jeffrey Norman Elliott Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Max Charles Moore II Represented By Jonathan M. Saffer
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:19-01183 DYE v. Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. et al
fr. 7-27-21, 8-17-21
Docket 165
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/30/21 - Steve Berman, (813)676-7234
6/21/21 -- Court entered order continuing hearing to August 17, 2021 at 2:00 pm. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 27, 2021.
7/28/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. (See order for additional dates.)
Tentative Ruling for August 31, 2021:
Court agrees with movants that any portions of declarations stricken as inadmissible in connection with prior motion for summary judgment are still inadmissible for the same reasons in this context. In addition, as court noted in response to trustee's motion, it is not helpful to provide the court with copies of complete transcripts without providing marked excerpts of the portions that the trustee considers relevant to the matters at issue.
Court will not grant summary judgment to trustee on this record. Trustee does not have admissible evidence on certain key issues, such as whether Lanius had actual knowledge of the principals' activities, and there are legal issues with portions of her claims as discussed in more detail below. Based on the trustee's own allegations and matters that are not at issue, motion should be granted in part.
2:00 PM
The following is a brief summary of the trustee's allegations as to the relevant facts and claims against Joseph Lanius, the individual, and Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. (jointly, the "Lanius Defendants" or "movants").
The trustee alleges that Elliott and Moore were the principals of the debtor GLI. De Gallegos was president and sales agent for GLI. Elliott was the manager of GLI, and Moore was its member. GLI was a foreign sales agent for films. The trustee alleges at length that GLI and GLG were operated as alter egos of one another and had no separate identity, that funds were co- mingled as between the two and that obligations of the one were frequently paid by the other. The trustee alleges that, notwithstanding GLI's financial problems, the principals made excessive use of GLI's company credit cards for personal expenses and that they diverted monies that GLI was obligated to pay its creditors (and that may have even been funds that should have been held in trust for creditors) to pay operating expenses of GLI, including their own salaries.
GLI was supposed to attend major film festivals and had a contractual obligation to do so, including a festival in Berlin. The principals represented that de Gallegos would attend the Berlin festival and covered up/lied about the fact that he did not in fact do so. Lanius actively participated in the coverup by encouraging the principals to make false statements to Raven about what happened at the Berlin festival. The principals settled Raven's
$140,000 claim against Falcon Films for $100,000 without Raven's permission to do so and converted/diverted the funds for GLI uses. Raven terminated GLI's contract and obtained an arbitration award that ultimately amounted to $765,000 for breach of fiduciary duty under the parties' contracts.
GLI retained the Lanius Defendants in an engagement letter signed August 24, 2015. They were paid a total of $45,000, some of which was paid by GLI and some of which was paid by GLG. Trustee contends that the Lanius Defendants assisted the principals in breaching their obligation to turn monies over to creditors and instead diverting creditor's funds to GLI. Trustee asserts that the monies diverted from Raven and other creditors of GLI did not belong to GLI.
2:00 PM
The trustee has asserted 4 claims against the Lanius Defendants, which can be summarized as follows:
Count I -- Actual Fraud Fraudulent transfer to the PC
Lanius Law & Associates received payment of $45,000 in attorneys' fees from monies wrongfully diverted from Raven at a time when GLI was insolvent for which it did not receive reasonably equivalent value.
Count II -- Aiding and Abetting Actual Fraud against both Lanius Defendants This claim has two different parts. The first alleges that the Lanius assisted the principals in a concerted effort to defraud GLI's creditors, which resulted in substantial injury to GLI and its creditors. The second part alleges that Lanius knowingly assisted the principals in funnelling assets out of GLI and into other entities under the principals' control by helping to create entities that would eventually be used by the principals to divert business opportunities out of the bankruptcy estate and away from GLI's creditors. (On or about July 8, 2016, Lanius assisted the debtor by setting up two Delaware entities, FV Film Holdings, LLC and Face Value Motion Picture, Inc. that were owned by GLG.)
Count IV -- Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against individual) Trustee alleges that the individual defendant aided and abetting GLI in breaching the fiduciary duties that it owed to its creditors.
Count VI -- Professional Negligence (against individual)
Trustee alleges that, by helping the principals divert funds from GLI to GLG, Lanius breached his duty to GLI. Trustee describes the misconduct in paragraph 265 as failing to advise the principals of the fraudulent nature of their conduct, allowing the principals to loot GLI of its assets prior to bankruptcy, establishing entities to facilitate the principal's acts to defraud GLI's creditors, failing to advise the principals that they were breaching their fiduciary duties to GLI and its creditors and failing to acknowledge the substantial conflict of interest present in the advice he was giving to principals to the detriment of GLI and its creditors.
Grant partial summary adjudication in movants' favor on first claim for relief.
2:00 PM
In substance, what the trustee is alleging is that the Lanius defendants are subsequent transferees of a fraudulent transfer of assets that belonged to Raven. There is no transfer of an asset that belonged to GLI. If the trustee were representing Raven's estate, this theory of recovery might work, but there is no fraudulent transfer from the perspective of GLI. Moreover, except to the extent that there was professional negligence such that the services performed by the Lanius defendants were not worth $45,000 (which has already been raised in a later claim for relief), GLI received the benefit of these transfers because it satisfied an antecedent debt of GLI for legal fees. This isn't a claim that can be prosecuted by GLI's trustee. This claim would belong to creditors of Raven or Raven's bankruptcy estate, if it had a bankruptcy estate.
In substance, what the trustee is attempting to do here is to seek equitable indemmification or contribution from the Lanius defendants for amounts owed to Raven, but the trustee has not pleaded such a claim and it is far from clear whether, on these facts (where the trustee is standing in the shoes of a debtor who engaged in wrongdoing and therefore may have unclean hands), a claim of this kind would be available.
With regard to the second claim for relief, the portion of the claim that is for aiding and abetting the fraudulent transfer that is the subject of Count 1 fails for the same reason as Count 1 itself. The trustee does not have standing to prosecute this claim. The trustee is not alleging injury to GLI. The trustee is alleging injury to GLI's creditors. The misconduct described in the first portion of this claim is diverting assets TO GLI not diverting assets away from it.
Therefore, the court should grant partial summary adjudication in favor of the defendants with regard to this portion of Count II.
However, the motion should be denied with regard to the second theory of recovery alleged in Count II. To the extent that the principals caused GLI to fraudulently convey away its own assets and business opportunities by setting up new entities that the principals owned and fraudulently transferring assets to these entities, this may be a fraudulent transfer action that the trustee could pursue. As a result, the trustee may be able to state a claim for aiding and abetting a fraudulent transfer of this kind. There may, however, be problems with this theory, such as the fact that the trustee herself has alleged
2:00 PM
that these newly-formed entities were owned by GLG and that there is no difference between GLI and GLG, and, as a factual matter, there may be disputes as to what movants knew at the time these entities were set up. In any event, the Court is not prepared to conclude at this time that this claim must fail as a matter of law.
The motion should be granted with regard to Count IV. The fiduciary duties that are the subject of this aiding and abetting claim are the fiduciary duties that GLI owed to Raven and other creditors. The trustee lacks standing to prosecute these claims. The parties to whom these duties run are the parties that are entitled to prosecute these claims.
The motion should be denied with regard to Count VI, the professional negligence claims. The Court rejects defendants' statute of limitations arguments. With regard to the allegations about helping the principals divert assets from GLI by setting up the new entities, the claim is timely. According to the complaint, the new entities were set up on July 8, 2016. The bankruptcy was filed on July 7, 2017, so the one-year statute had not run as of the moment of filing. That would have given the trustee two years under section 108 to file the complaint. The complaint was filed on June 20, 2019.
Any viable claim that may be stated based on the Raven arbitration award appears timely as well. Court agrees that, under applicable nonbankruptcy law, the claim begins to run when the damage is sustained and it may be argued that the statute did not begin to run, therefore, until the earliest on August 12, 2016, when a partial final award was entered in the arbitration. Thus, the claim would not have been time-barred as of the petition date and is therefore timely as the complaint was filed within two years thereafter.
The court agrees with the trustee that the duty of confidentiality has no bearing on the outcome of this dispute. To the extent that there is any confidentiality between GLI and the defendants, the trustee, who now holds the privilege, is entitled to waive it.
And although the doctrine of in pari delicto may be a problem with other types of claims and with certain types of conduct, an attorney cannot defend a professional negligence claim in which he is accused of having given bad
2:00 PM
legal advice or in failing to perform competent legal services (i.e., a breach of a duty of care) by saying a (non-lawyer) representative of the client consented to or participated in the conduct. The lawyer is the one with the professional expertise upon whom the client is relying.
However, if the professional negligence claim is based upon an alleged breach of a duty of loyalty to the (here, corporate) client, the doctrine of in pari delicto may well come into play. With regard to a professional negligence claim, the trustee is standing in the debtor's shoes. Therefore, if the debtor would have been barred by the doctrine of in pari delicto, the trustee will be too. With regard to any claim that the movants committed professional negligence by conspiring with the principals to defraud or divert assets from GLI, the trustee may have a problem, in that the trustee has not established that there was anyone to whom a report should have been made other than the parties participating in the wrongful conduct. Therefore, although the self- interested director exception to the in pari delicto doctrine comes into play, there is an exception to this exception that applies if the self- interested/misbehaving director(s) are the only persons in control of the company. In such an instance, there is no one to whom the attorney should have reported the directors' misconduct and no one for whose benefit a whistle should have been blown by reporting or resigning. In such an instance, the parties giving the attorney marching instructions are the only parties making the decisions and the in pari delicto defense will apply.
Here, there are still too many open factual issues for the court to adjudicate the professional negligence claim summarily. What did movants actually know when? What services were the defendants called upon to perform? Were the movants asked to opine or counsel the principals on whether engaging in this conduct or that conduct would amount to a breach of GLI's obligations to Raven or other third parties? Therefore, the motion should be denied with regard to Count VI.
This will leave the following viable theories as against movant.
The portion of Count II that alleges aiding and abetting a fraudulent transfer by assisting the principals in diverting assets/business opportunities away from GLI to other entities that they controlled.
2:00 PM
The professional negligence claims.
8/30/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to September 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Pretrial conference is continued from September 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. to October 26, 2021 at 2:00 pm. (See order for additional dates.) OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 31, 2021.)
Debtor(s):
Green-Light International, LLC Represented By David S Hagen
Defendant(s):
Burgee & Abramoff, P.C. Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
John Burgee Represented By
Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Robert Abramoff Represented By Amy L Goldman Lovee D Sarenas Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin
2:00 PM
Movant(s):
Steven M Berman
Lanius Law & Associates, P.C. Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Joseph Lanius Represented By Stella A Havkin Steven M Berman
Plaintiff(s):
CAROLYN A DYE Represented By Steven M Berman Stella A Havkin
Trustee(s):
Carolyn A Dye (TR) Represented By Steven M Berman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 2:20-01126 Pouladian v. Deco Enterprises, Inc. et al
Docket 82
NONE LISTED -
Have the requested documents been produced? If not, why not? Hearing required.
Counsel advises that documents have been produced and that motion will be withdrawn. APPEARANCES WAIVED.
Debtor(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
Defendant(s):
Deco Enterprises, Inc. Represented By Raymond H. Aver
Craig Allen Pro Se
Movant(s):
Benjamin Pouladian Represented By John R Yates
Benjamin Pouladian Represented By John R Yates
Benjamin Pouladian Pro Se
2:00 PM
Benjamin Pouladian Pro Se
Benjamin Pouladian Represented By John R Yates
Pouladian Family Trust Represented By John R Yates
Plaintiff(s):
Benjamin Pouladian Represented By John R Yates
2:00 PM
MOVANT: AL MILLER & SONS ROOFING CO., INC. fr. 5-25-21, 6-8-21, 6-29-21, 7-13-21, 7-27-21, 8-17-21
Docket 180
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/24/21 - Nicholas Brunner, (562)594-3911 8/24/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000
8/27/21 - Caroline R. Djang, (949) 263-6586
8/30/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779
8/30/21 - Thomas Polis, (949)862-0400
8/30/21 - Evin Smith, (951)894-7332
8/30/21 - Dr. Elliot Lander
8/30/21 - Crystle Lindsey, (310)207-1494
2:00 PM
8/30/21 - Doug Wall, (760)772-8446
8/30/21 - Marc Homme, (760)568-5694
8/30/21 - R. Gibson Pagter, Jr. (714)541-6072 x 221 8/30/21 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311
8/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
8/30/21 - Steve Berman, (813)676-7234
8/30/21 - Ed Hays, (949)413-7223
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Grant motion to the extent necessary to permit parties to litigate their disputes to a final judgment. Enforcement should remain stayed.
6/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 13, 2021:
2:00 PM
Tentative ruling from June 29, 2021 remains unchanged.
7/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 13, 2021.
7/14/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021.
8/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 17, 2021. (See order for
additional dates.)
Tentative Ruling for August 31, 2021:
Pursuant to his agreement with Calmwater, trustee currently has until September 30, 2021 to close a sale of the property. If the trustee succeeds in consummating a sale by then to a third party, competing lienholders will need to ascertain their respective priorities to determine whether or not movant will be entitled to have its lien paid from the proceeds of sale. If no sale to a third party is consummated by then, Calmwater will be required to purchase the property and deposit money into escrow for the benefit of mechanics lien holders should they be determined to have liens senior to that of Calmwater. In other words, whether or not the trustee sells the property to a third party by September 30, 2021, the parties will need to resolve the priority dispute between movant and Calmwater promptly thereafter.
Accordingly, grant motion to the extent necessary to permit movant to litigate its claims to a final judgment, but make relief from stay effective October 15, 2021. (Enforcement as against the debtor, the trustee and the estate would remain stayed, but, if the estate is holding the disputed sales proceeds, this court will issue an order distributing the sales proceeds in accordance with the parties' respective priorities, once they have been determined.)
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By
2:00 PM
Movant(s):
Daniel J Weintraub Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Al Miller & Sons Roofing Co., Inc. Represented By
Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
2:00 PM
v. Doug Wall Construction, et al MOVANT: TANDEM WEST GLASS, INC.
fr. 5-25-21, 6-8-21, 6-29-21, 7-13-21, 7-27-21, 8-17-21
Docket 181
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/24/21 - Nicholas Brunner, (562)594-3911 8/24/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000
8/27/21 - Caroline R. Djang, (949) 263-6586
8/30/21 - Thomas Polis, (949)862-0400 8/30/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779 8/30/21 - Evin Smith, (951)894-7332
8/30/21 - Dr. Elliot Lander
8/30/21 - Crystle Lindsey, (310)207-1494 8/30/21 - Doug Wall, (760)772-8446
8/30/21 - Marc Homme, (760)568-5694
8/30/21 - R. Gibson Pagter, Jr. (714)541-6072 x 221
2:00 PM
8/30/21 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311 8/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
8/30/21 - Steve Berman, (813)676-7234
8/30/21 - Ed Hays, (949)413-7223
5/12/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR MAY 25, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for June 8, 2021:
What is the trustee's position with regard to the requested relief?
6/3/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to June 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 8, 2021. NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
Tentative Ruling for June 29, 2021:
Grant motion to the extent necessary to permit parties to litigate their disputes to a final judgment. Enforcement should remain stayed.
6/25/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 13, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JUNE 30, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for July 13, 2021:
Tentative ruling from June 29, 2021 remains unchanged.
7/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR J
JULY 13, 2021.
2:00 PM
7/14/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 17, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 27, 2021.
8/9/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 17, 2021. (See order for
additional dates.)
Tentative Ruling for August 31, 2021:
Pursuant to his agreement with Calmwater, trustee currently has until September 30, 2021 to close a sale of the property. If the trustee succeeds in consummating a sale by then to a third party, competing lienholders will need to ascertain their respective priorities to determine whether or not movant will be entitled to have its lien paid from the proceeds of sale. If no sale to a third party is consummated by then, Calmwater will be required to purchase the property and deposit money into escrow for the benefit of mechanics lien holders should they be determined to have liens senior to that of Calmwater. In other words, whether or not the trustee sells the property to a third party by September 30, 2021, the parties will need to resolve the priority dispute between movant and Calmwater promptly thereafter.
Accordingly, grant motion to the extent necessary to permit movant to litigate its claims to a final judgment, but make relief from stay effective October 15, 2021. (Enforcement as against the debtor, the trustee and the estate would remain stayed, but, if the estate is holding the disputed sales proceeds, this court will issue an order distributing the sales proceeds in accordance with the parties' respective priorities, once they have been determined.)
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
2:00 PM
Movant(s):
Tandem West Glass, Inc. Represented By Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
2:00 PM
fr. 8-18-21
Docket 322
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/24/21 - Nicholas Brunner, (562)594-3911 8/24/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000
8/27/21 - Caroline R. Djang, (949) 263-6586
8/30/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779 8/30/21 - Thomas Polis, (949)862-0400
8/30/21 - Evin Smith, (951)894-7332
8/30/21 - Dr. Elliot Lander
8/30/21 - Crystle Lindsey, (310)207-1494 8/30/21 - Doug Wall, (760)772-8446
8/30/21 - Marc Homme, (760)568-5694
8/30/21 - R. Gibson Pagter, Jr. (714)541-6072 x 221 8/30/21 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311
2:00 PM
8/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
8/30/21 - Steve Berman, (813)676-7234
8/30/21 - Ed Hays, (949)413-7223
8/4/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 18, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 31, 2021:
Court will not adjudicate in this context either the respective priorities of the mechanics' lienholders and the lender or the enforceability of any subordination agreement as between Doug Wall and the lender. The mechanics' lienholders are not parties to the compromise and their rights will not be adversely affected by the compromise. The $4M escrow creates merely another possible avenue for recovery, not the exclusive one.
Perhaps the court is confused as to how the parties to the compromise intend for this to work, but, in the court's view, this is how it should play out. Either the property will be sold to a third party free and clear of the lender's liens or the lender will be required to credit bid and make a $4M escrow deposit and the lender will purchase the property with its credit bid.
If the property is sold to a third party, the agreement will need to clarify that, in the unlikely event that there is sufficient overbidding such that there are sufficient sales proceeds to satisfy the lender's lien in full, any excess proceeds will be paid to the estate (for the benefit of any creditors with liens junior to that of the lender and general unsecured creditors). The lender should not under any circumstances recover more than payment in full of its allowed claim. If a sale to a third party is consummated, the sale will be free and clear with all liens to attach to the net sales proceeds in accordance with their respective priorities. The lender and the mechanics lienholders (and any other parties claiming a lien against the property) will need to resolve, either
2:00 PM
through litigation or compromise, their respective disputes. Any mechanics liens that are found to be senior to the interest of the lender will be paid from the net sales proceeds, and the remainder would be paid to the lender, up to the full amount of its claim. The court cannot in this procedural context and on this evidentiary record estimate that senior mechanics' liens will not exceed any particular amount and thereby leave them with no remedy other than the right to proceed against amounts deposited for their benefit into an escrow account.
If the secured creditor ends up purchasing the property for a credit bid, it will be required to make the escrow deposit, but, again, the court does not have the authority in this context to give the lender priority over a mechanics lien that would have been senior to its credit bid. The lender's lien has whatever priority it has. This "compromise" without the consent of the mechanics lienholders or an adjudication that the lender lien is senior cannot give the lender's lien more priority than that. Therefore, if the estate lacks the resources to pay from whatever remains of the escrow account any mechanics' liens that are determined to be senior to that of the credit bid, the lender's interest in the property will remain subject to these mechanics' liens. (In other words, the court cannot "strip off" a senior lien and permit a junior lienholder to buy the property with a lien that would have been junior to the stripped lien.)
Similarly, the court cannot and will not adjudicate in the context of this compromise whether there is a binding subordination agreement as between Doug Wall and the lender. The parties will retain whatever rights and arguments they may have with regard to this dispute and can litigate about it later. If there is an enforceable subordination agreement, Doug Wall will not be entitled to receive any payment on account of its lien unless and until the lender has received payment in full, except to the extent that the terms of the subordination agreement itself contemplate a different result. If for whatever reason there is no enforceable subordination agreement and Doug Wall holds a lien that is senior to that of the lender, under the same reasoning set forth above, Doug Wall would retain a lien against the property senior to the interest of the lender and should therefore receive payment from the net sales proceeds ahead of the lender (in the event of a sale to a third party) or retain its lien against the property (in the event of a credit bid sale to the lender).
2:00 PM
Overrule objection from insiders. This objection amounts to little more than a statement that the insiders' business judgment with regard to the best way forward differs from that of the trustee. The objecting parties assert that the proposed compromise is the product of a "secret back room deal," but there is no evidence to support this conclusion. The trustee is not required to include the objecting parties or a creditors' committee in his compromise negotiations and, although they may disagree with the trustee's conclusion that the proposed compromise is in the best interest of the estate, this doesn't mean that the compromise is collusive or in bad faith. There is no reason to believe on this record that any alleged conflict that forms the basis of the objecting parties' disqualification motion with regard to lender's counsel had any effect whatsoever on the contours of this compromise.
Subject to above clarifications as to how priority disputes will be resolved (which court assumes will also resolve issue raised by Al Miller & Sons, et al., with regard to surcharge), overrule objections, grant motion and approve compromise.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
2:00 PM
Docket 324
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/24/21 - Nicholas Brunner, (562)594-3911 8/24/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000
8/27/21 - Caroline R. Djang, (949) 263-6586
8/30/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779 8/30/21 - Thomas Polis, (949)862-0400
8/30/21 - Evin Smith, (951)894-7332
8/30/21 - Dr. Elliot Lander
8/30/21 - Crystle Lindsey, (310)207-1494 8/30/21 - Doug Wall, (760)772-8446
8/30/21 - Marc Homme, (760)568-5694
8/30/21 - R. Gibson Pagter, Jr. (714)541-6072 x 221 8/30/21 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311
8/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
2:00 PM
8/30/21 - Steve Berman, (813)676-7234
8/30/21 - Ed Hays, (949)413-7223
8/4/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 18, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 31, 2021:
Court agrees that there is no reason for this case to remain in chapter 11 on a going forward basis, but this court does not control the selection of the chapter 7 trustee. Although the motion asserts that conversion would have no effect on the proposed compromise, if the identity of the trustee changes, this may not necessarily be the case, as a different party coming in might have a different understanding or take a different position with regard to interpretation of the parties' agreement. Shouldn't the effective date of a conversion be after the property has been sold to a third party or to the lender pursuant to the compromise? Hearing required.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
fr. 3-10-21, 4-7-21, 5-5-21, 7-7-21, 7-28-21, 8-18-21
Docket 42
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/24/21 - Nicholas Brunner, (562)594-3911 8/24/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000
8/27/21 - Caroline R. Djang, (949) 263-6586
8/30/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779 8/30/21 - Thomas Polis, (949)862-0400
8/30/21 - Evin Smith, (951)894-7332
8/30/21 - Dr. Elliot Lander
8/30/21 - Crystle Lindsey, (310)207-1494 8/30/21 - Doug Wall, (760)772-8446
8/30/21 - Marc Homme, (760)568-5694
8/30/21 - R. Gibson Pagter, Jr. (714)541-6072 x 221 8/30/21 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311
2:00 PM
8/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
8/30/21 - Steve Berman, (813)676-7234
8/30/21 - Ed Hays, (949)413-7223
Tentative Ruling from March 10, 2021:
It is not the case that appointment of a trustee moots this motion. Debtor only owns a portion of the title to the affected real property as a tenant in common. There are three other owners who are not in bankruptcy. The receiver was not appointed for the debtor. The receiver was appointed to take charge of the property. It makes no sense to have the receiver controlling three of the undivided interests in the property and the debtor's trustee controlling the other. If there are concerns about the choice of Mr. Leslie as the receiver, the court will grant relief from stay to permit the trustee that the court will appoint in response to the motion on calendar as number 4 to litigate those concerns on behalf of the debtor, should he or she elect to do so.
Final Ruling from March 10, 2021:
Court appointed trustee in response to related motion. Court continued hearing on this motion to April 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to give the trustee an opportunity to consider his/her position with regard to this motion. Order continuing hearing should clarify that receiver may remain in possession pending outcome of the hearing on this motion.
3/26/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to May 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR APRIL 7, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for May 5, 2021:
Trustee requests a continuance to July 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and that the status quo be maintained in the interim. Grant trustee's request. Continue hearing to July 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Authorize receiver to remain in possession in the interim. (Counsel for receiver should lodge order to this
2:00 PM
effect.)
Movant objects and claims that the trustee should abandon the estate's interest in the real property. But that is not the relief requested by this motion. If the movant would like the trustee to abandon the property and the trustee is not willing to do so, the lender should bring a motion to compel abandonment. The granting of a motion to permit the lender to remain in possession would not amount to the abandonment of the estate's interest in the property, nor would it result in termination of the automatic stay. It would simply permit the receiver to remain as the custodian of the property while the trustee continues to administer the estate.
NOTE: Movant complains that the co-tenants are demanding concessions in exchange for their willingness to convey their interests to the estate, but what obligation do they have to convey these interests to the estate? The trustee could no doubt file an adversary proceeding under section 363(h), but that would entail expense and delay.
6/28/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and excusing receiver from turnover in the interim. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 7, 2021.
7/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and excusing receiver from turnover in the interim. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 28, 2021.
8/6/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. and excusing receiver from turnover in the interim. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 18, 2021.
8/23/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to September 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and excusing receiver from turnover in the interim. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 31, 2021.
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Movant(s):
U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III- Represented By
Marsha A Houston Christopher O Rivas
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
2:00 PM
Docket 1
ZoomGov Appearance by:
8/24/21 - Nicholas Brunner, (562)594-3911 8/24/21 - Marsha Houston, (213)457-8000
8/27/21 - Caroline R. Djang, (949) 263-6586
8/30/21 - Timothy Laquer, (714)925-1779 8/30/21 - Thomas Polis, (949)862-0400
8/30/21 - Evin Smith, (951)894-7332
8/30/21 - Dr. Elliot Lander
8/30/21 - Crystle Lindsey, (310)207-1494 8/30/21 - Doug Wall, (760)772-8446
8/30/21 - Marc Homme, (760)568-5694
8/30/21 - R. Gibson Pagter, Jr. (714)541-6072 x 221 8/30/21 - Mark Horoupian, (213)626-2311
8/30/21 - Eryk Escobar, (202)934-4168
2:00 PM
8/30/21 - Steve Berman, (813)676-7234
8/30/21 - Ed Hays, (949)413-7223
Continue status conference to July 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (same date and time as hearing on motion to excuse receiver) as a holding date. No new status report is required for that status conference. Appearances waived on July 7, 2021.
7/16/21 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR JULY 28, 2021.
8/4/2021 -- Court approved stipulation continuing hearing to August 31, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. OFF CALENDAR FOR AUGUST 18, 2021.
Tentative Ruling for August 31, 2021:
Revisit status of case after conclusion of related matters on calendar.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays
2:00 PM
Docket 411
NONE LISTED -
Deny motion to strike. Court is not troubled by the characterization of USRECH's filing as a reply rather than as a response to the motion. There no longer is such a thing as a joinder and the papers filed by USRECH were in the nature of a reply to the oppositions interposed to the motion, not a response or an opposition to the original motion.
Movants are not prejudiced by the timing of the filing. The court had already prepared the tentative ruling posted with regard to the compromise before it had received or reviewed USRECH's reply and did not modify or alter its tentative ruling based on anything contained in the reply. The court viewed that filing as having more to do with issues concerning the holders of mechanics' liens than with any issues raised by the movants here, and the court will not entertain argument from these movants as to any adverse impact the compromise may have on the holders of mechanics' liens.
Court did not view any material contained in the reply as defamatory or scandalous and movants do not need an opportunity to respond to a request for judicial notice that gives the court a copy of a minute order issued in the state court action. Court will disregard any contentions made by USRECH as to any alleged perjury or fraud upon the court on grounds of relevance.
Debtor(s):
Glenroy Coachella, LLC Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Crystle Jane Lindsey James R Selth
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes
D Edward Hays