United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of...

United States Bankruptcy CourtCentral District of California

Judge Theodor Albert, PresidingCourtroom 5B Calendar

Santa Ana

Thursday, November 7, 2019 5B Hearing Room

10:00 AMPoint Center Financial, Inc.8:13-11495 Chapter 7

Howard B. Grobstein, Chapter 7 Trustee v. CALCOMM CAPITAL, INC., a Adv#: 8:15-01089

#1.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Third Amended Complaint for 91) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (2) Turnover; (3) Avoidance of Pre-Petition Fraudulent Transfers; (4) Avoidance of Unauthorized Post-Petition Transfers; (5) Recovery of Pre-Petition Fraudulent Transfers and Unauthorized Post-Petition Transfers; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (7) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (8) Declaratory Relief. (con't from 08-29-19 per order approving stip. to con't ent. 8-27-19)

83Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:See #15 at 11:00AM. Are parties prepared to set deadlines on complaint issues?

------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 6/8/17:Status conference continued to September 7, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. with expectation that involuntary proceeding will be clarified and settlement examined.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 2/9/17:Status Conference continued to May 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Personal appearance not required.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Point Center Financial, Inc. Represented ByRobert P GoeJeffrey S BeniceCarlos F Negrete - INACTIVE -

Page 1 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMPoint Center Financial, Inc.CONT... Chapter 7

Defendant(s):

Estancia Atascadero Investments, Pro Se

Georgetown Commercial Center, Pro Se

Island Way Investments I, LLC Pro Se

Island Way Investments II, LLC Pro Se

Lake Olympia Missouri City Pro Se

Michigan Avenue Grand Terrace Pro Se

Mission Ridge Ladera Ranch, LLC Pro Se

Olive Avenue Investors, LLC Represented ByJonathan Shenson

Enterprise Temecula, LLC Pro Se

Palm Springs Country Club Pro Se

Pinnacle Peak Investors, LLC Pro Se

Provo Industrial Parkway, LLC Pro Se

South 7th Street Investments, LLC Represented ByJonathan Shenson

Spanish and Colonial Ladera Pro Se

Summerwind Investors, LLC Pro Se

Van Buren Investors, LLC Pro Se

White Mill Lake Investments, LLC Pro Se

Richard K. Diamond, solely in his Pro Se

Park Scottsdale, LLC Pro Se

Encinitas Ocean Investments, LLC Pro Se

El Jardin Atascadero Investments, Pro Se

Dillon Avenue 44, LLC Pro Se

Page 2 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



CALCOMM CAPITAL, INC., a Represented ByNancy A ConroySean A OKeefe

NATIONAL FINANCIAL Represented ByNancy A Conroy

POINT CENTER MORTGAGE Represented ByCarlos F Negrete - INACTIVE -Nancy A ConroyJonathan Shenson

NATIONAL FINANCIAL Represented ByCarlos F Negrete - INACTIVE -Sean A OKeefe

Dan J. Harkey Represented ByNancy A ConroySean A OKeefe

M. Gwen Melanson Represented ByNancy A Conroy

RENE ESPARZA Represented ByNancy A Conroy

DOES 1-30, inclusive Pro Se

16th Street San Diego Investors, Pro Se

6th & Upas Investments, LLC Pro Se

Altamonte Springs Church Pro Se

Andalucia Investors, LLC Pro Se

Anthem Office Investors, LLC Pro Se

Buckeye Investors, LLC Pro Se

Calhoun Investments, LLC Pro Se

Capital Hotel Investors, LLC Pro Se

Page 3 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Champagne Blvd Investors, LLC Represented ByJonathan Shenson

Cobb Parkway Investments, LLC Pro Se

Deer Canyon Investments, LLC Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Howard B. Grobstein, Chapter 7 Represented ByJohn P ReitmanRodger M LandauRoye ZurMonica Rieder

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented ByRodger M LandauRoye ZurKathy Bazoian PhelpsJohn P ReitmanRobert G Wilson - SUSPENDED -Monica RiederJon L DalbergMichael G SpectorPeter J GurfeinJack A Reitman

Page 4 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Howard Grobstein, as Chapter 7 trustee v. POINT CENTER MORTGAGE Adv#: 8:16-01042

#2.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Fraudulent Transfers or, in the Alternative, Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers -(con't from 10-03-19 )

Answer to Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Fraudulent Transfers; Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint filed 10-5-17

1Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:See # 16 @ 11:00AM; are the parties ready to set deadlines for issues in complaint?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 10/3/19:Where's the order requested at the 8/1 hearing?

-----------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 8/1/19:The court notes that a portion of the counterclaim based in breach of contract was remanded by order of the District Court dated May 2, 2019. But also, we learn that the counterclaimant may be a suspended corporation, and so is its manager Tamco, and that entity's principal, Mr. Gomberg, is deceased. Dismiss?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 6/7/18:

Tentative Ruling:

Page 5 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



See Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim (Calendar # 13 at 11:00AM)

-------------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 2/15/18:Status? Why no report?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 10/12/17:See #11.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 6/8/17:A stay was entered March 21 but is up soon. What next?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 2/9/17:Status Conference continued to June 8, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Is a stay appropriate?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 11/10/16:No tentative.

------------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 8/25/16:Status conference continued to November 10, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. with stay of proceedings extended in interim, per trustee's request.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Page 6 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Deadline for completing discovery: October 1, 2016Last date for filing pre-trial motions: October 24, 2016Pre-trial conference on: November 10, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.Joint pre-trial order due per local rules.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Point Center Financial, Inc. Represented ByRobert P GoeJeffrey S BeniceCarlos F Negrete

Defendant(s):

POINT CENTER MORTGAGE Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Howard Grobstein, as Chapter 7 Represented ByRoye Zur

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented ByRodger M LandauRoye ZurKathy Bazoian PhelpsJohn P ReitmanRobert G WilsonMonica RiederJon L DalbergMichael G SpectorPeter J Gurfein

U.S. Trustee(s):

United States Trustee (SA) Pro Se

Page 7 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMLong-Dei Liu8:16-11588 Chapter 11

Avery v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et alAdv#: 8:19-01022

#3.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint For Avoidance And Recovery Of Unauthorized Post-Petition Transfer(con't from 10-10-19 per ord appr. stip. to cont. ent. 8-22-19)

1Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:Deadline for completing discovery: December 31, 2019Last date for filing pre-trial motions: January 21, 2020Pre-trial conference on: February 6, 2020 at 10:00AM.Joint pre-trial order due per local rules.

Tentative for 6/6/19:Status Conference continued to October 3, 2019 at 10:00am

Are these parties going to litigate over $5,800?

Refer to mediation. Order appointing mediator to be lodged by Plaintiff within 10 days.

One day of mediation to be completed by August 31, 2019.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Long-Dei Liu Represented ByLei Lei Wang EkvallRobert S MarticelloDavid A KaySteven H Zeigen

Page 8 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMLong-Dei LiuCONT... Chapter 11

Michael SimonKyra E Andrassy

Defendant(s):

WELLS FARGO BANK, Pro Se

Shu Shen Liu Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Wesley H. Avery Represented ByLaila MasudD Edward Hays

Page 9 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Avery v. Shen LiuAdv#: 8:19-01023

#4.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint for Avoidance And Recovery Of Unauthorized Post-Petition Transfer(con't from 10-10-19 per ord appr. stip. to cont. ent. 8-22-19)

1Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:Status conference continued to December 5, 2019 at 11:00AM to coincide with MSJ.

---------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 6/6/19:Deadline for completing discovery: November 15, 2019Last date for filing pre-trial motions:December 2, 2019Pre-trial conference on: December 19, 2019 at 10:00amJoint pre-trial order due per local rules.Refer to mediation. Order appointing mediator to be lodged by Plaintiff within 10 days. One day of mediation to be completed by August 31, 2019.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Long-Dei Liu Represented ByLei Lei Wang EkvallRobert S MarticelloDavid A KaySteven H ZeigenMichael SimonKyra E Andrassy

Page 10 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Defendant(s):Shu Shen Liu Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):


Page 11 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Avery v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK et alAdv#: 8:19-01024

#5.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint For Avoidance, Recovery, And Preservation Of Unauthorized Post-Petition Transfers(con't from 10-10-19 per order approving stip. to cont. mediation completion date & s/c entered 8-26-19 )

1Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:Status conference continued to December 5, 2019 at 11:00AM to coincide with MSJ.

------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 6/6/19:Deadline for completing discovery: October 31, 2019Last date for filing pre-trial motions:November 15, 2019Pre-trial conference on: December 19, 2019 at 10:00amJoint pre-trial order due per local rules.Refer to mediation. Order appointing mediator to be lodged by Plaintiff within 10 days. One day of mediation to be completed by August 31, 2019.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Page 12 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Defendant(s):JPMORGAN CHASE BANK Pro Se

Shu Shen Liu Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):


Page 13 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Avery v. Barclays Bank Delaware et alAdv#: 8:19-01025

#6.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint For Avoidance, Recovery, And Preservation Of Unauthorized Post-Petition Transfers(con't from 10-10-19 per order approving stip. to cont. mediation completion date and s/c entered 8-26-19) )

1Docket


---------------------------------------------------------


Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Page 14 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Defendant(s):

Barclays Bank Delaware Pro Se

Shu Shen Liu Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):


Page 15 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Avery v. Citibank et alAdv#: 8:19-01026

#7.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint For Avoidance, Recovery, And Preservation Of Unauthorized Post-Petition Transfers(con't from 10-10-19 per order approving stip. to cont. mediation completion date and s/c entered 8-26-19)

1Docket


----------------------------------------------------------


Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Page 16 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Defendant(s):

Citibank Pro Se

Shu Shen Liu Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):


Page 17 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Avery v. Bank of America Corporation et alAdv#: 8:19-01027

#8.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint For Avoidance, Recovery, And Preservation Of Unauthorized Post-Petition Transfers(con't from 10-10-19 per ord appr. stip. to cont. ent. 8-22-19)

1Docket


------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 6/6/19:Status conference continued to September 12, 2019 at 10:00am (following mediation in related matters)

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Defendant(s):

Bank of America Corporation Pro Se

Charles C.H. Wu & Associates, APC Pro Se

Page 18 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Shu Shen Liu Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):


Page 19 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Avery v. Charles C.H. Wu & Associates, APC et alAdv#: 8:19-01028

#9.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint For Avoidance, Recovery, And Preservation Of Unauthorized Post-Petition Transfers(con't from 10-10-19 per ord appr. stip. to cont. ent. 8-22-19)

1Docket


---------------------------------------------------------------


Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Page 20 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Defendant(s):Charles C.H. Wu & Associates, APC Pro Se

Shu Shen Liu Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):


Page 21 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMZia Shlaimoun8:17-10976 Chapter 7

Thomas H. Casey, Trustee of the Zia Shlaimoun Ch. v. Shlaimoun et alAdv#: 8:19-01045

#10.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Chapter 7 Trustee's Complaint Against Heyde Management, LLC For: 1) Avoidance of a Transfer of Property Pursuant to Section 547(b); 2) Avoidance of a Transfer of Property Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 548; 3) Avoiance of a Tranfer of Property Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 549; 4) Recovery of Avoided Transfer Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 550(Con't from 10-24-19 per another summon issued on 9-18-19)

1Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:Why no status report?

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Zia Shlaimoun Represented ByCharles Shamash

Defendant(s):

Zumaone LLC, a California limited Pro Se

New Era Valet LLC, a limited Pro Se

Jensen Investment Group LLC, a Pro Se

Goldstar Laboratories Missouri Pro Se

Goldstar Laboratories LLC, a Pro Se

Gold Star Health, LLC, a limited Pro Se

Gold Star Group, LLC, a Delaware Pro Se

40355 La Quinta Palmdale LLC, a Pro Se

328 Bruce LLC, a limited liability Pro Se

Page 22 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMZia ShlaimounCONT... Chapter 7

Aksel Ingolf Ostergard Jensen Pro Se

Oussha Shlaimoun Pro Se

Nico Aksel Leos Shlaimoun Pro Se

Helen Shlaimoun Pro Se

Go Gum, LLC, a Delaware limited Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Thomas H. Casey, Trustee of the Zia Represented ByMichael J Lee

Trustee(s):

Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented ByThomas H CaseyKathleen J McCarthyMichael Jason LeeSunjina Kaur Anand Ahuja

Page 23 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMGary James Sroka8:19-11841 Chapter 7

Sroka v. Mr Cooper et alAdv#: 8:19-01097

#11.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Declaratory Relief for a Declaratory Judgment (14 (Recovery of Money/Property) ,(91 (Declaratory Judgment)) ,(01 (Determination of Removal Claim or Cause)) ; (02 (Other)(con't from 9-26-19) (First Amended Complaint filed 9-12-19)

1Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:See motion to dismiss, #17

-----------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 9/26/19:Status conference continued to October 31, 2019 at 11:00AM to coincide with expected motion to dismiss.

--------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 8/15/19:Status conference continued to September 26, 2019 at 10:00AM in view of leave to amend granted 8/8.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gary James Sroka Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Mr Cooper Pro Se

Real Time Resolutions Inc Pro Se

Nationstar Mortgage LLC Pro Se

Bank of America N A Pro Se

Page 24 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMGary James SrokaCONT... Chapter 7

Wells Fargo Bank, National Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Gary Sroka Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se

Page 25 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMJames Michael Roberts8:19-10414 Chapter 7

Hulon v. RobertsAdv#: 8:19-01150

#12.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint To Determine Dischargeability Of Debt Under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(4) And 523(a)(6)(cont'd from 10-03-19)

1Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:Deadline for completing discovery: June 22, 2020Last date for filing pre-trial motions: July 3, 2020Pre-trial conference on: July 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.Joint pre-trial order due per local rules.

--------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 10/3/19:Deadline for completing discovery: June 22, 2020Last date for filing pre-trial motions: July 3, 2020Pre-trial conference on: July 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.Joint pre-trial order due per local rules.

Is there utility in proceeding with state action instead?

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

James Michael Roberts Represented ByAnerio V Altman

Defendant(s):

James Michael Roberts Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Geri Hulon Represented ByBrett Ramsaur

Page 26 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMJames Michael RobertsCONT... Chapter 7

Trustee(s):

Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se

Page 27 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Howard B. Grobstein, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Benice et alAdv#: 8:16-01045

#13.00 PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE RE: Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Fraudulent Transfers or, in the Alternative, Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers(cont'd from 7-11-19 per order on further stipulation entered 6-12-19)

1Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:The court would have signed an order continuing dates had an order to that effect been uploaded.

------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 6/23/16:Deadline for completing discovery: October 31, 2016Last date for filing pre-trial motions: November 14, 2016Pre-trial conference on: December 1, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.Joint pre-trial order due per local rules.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 5/5/16:Deadline for completing discovery: October 1, 2016Last date for filing pre-trial motions: October 24, 2016Pre-trial conference on: November 10, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.Joint pre-trial order due per local rules.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Point Center Financial, Inc. Represented ByRobert P GoeJeffrey S BeniceCarlos F Negrete

Page 28 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Defendant(s):

Jeffrey S. Benice Pro Se

Law Offices Of Jeffrey S. Benice Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Howard B. Grobstein, Chapter 7 Represented ByRoye Zur

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented ByRodger M LandauRoye ZurKathy Bazoian PhelpsJohn P ReitmanRobert G WilsonMonica RiederJon L DalbergMichael G SpectorPeter J Gurfein

U.S. Trustee(s):

United States Trustee (SA) Represented ByFrank Cadigan

Page 29 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMRichard Ryan Farino8:18-11185 Chapter 7

Hile v. FarinoAdv#: 8:18-01134

#14.00 PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE RE: Complaint to determine nondischargeability of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A)(con't from 6-27-19 per order regarding cont. dates listed in the prior scheduling order entered 6-03-19)

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3-05-20 AT 10:00 A.M. PER ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION OF COUNSEL REGARDING AMENDMENT TO STATUS CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED 9-30-19

Tentative for 10/4/18:Deadline for completing discovery: January 7, 2019Last date for filing pre-trial motions: January 28, 2019Pre-trial conference on: February 28, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.Joint pre-trial order due per local rules.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard Ryan Farino Represented ByJoseph A Weber

Defendant(s):

Richard Ryan Farino Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Gary Hile Represented ByWilliam R Cumming

Trustee(s):

Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se

Page 30 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Howard B. Grobstein, Chapter 7 Trustee v. CALCOMM CAPITAL, INC., a Adv#: 8:15-01089

#15.00 Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion To Dismiss Counterclaim

226Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:Grant. Appearance is optional.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Defendant(s):

Estancia Atascadero Investments, Pro Se

Georgetown Commercial Center, Pro Se

Island Way Investments I, LLC Pro Se

Island Way Investments II, LLC Pro Se

Lake Olympia Missouri City Pro Se

Michigan Avenue Grand Terrace Pro Se

Mission Ridge Ladera Ranch, LLC Represented ByAndrew Goodman

Olive Avenue Investors, LLC Represented ByJonathan Seligmann Shenson

Enterprise Temecula, LLC Pro Se

Page 31 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Palm Springs Country Club Pro Se

Pinnacle Peak Investors, LLC Pro Se

Provo Industrial Parkway, LLC Pro Se

South 7th Street Investments, LLC Represented ByJonathan Seligmann Shenson

Spanish and Colonial Ladera Pro Se

Summerwind Investors, LLC Pro Se

Van Buren Investors, LLC Pro Se

White Mill Lake Investments, LLC Pro Se

Richard K. Diamond, solely in his Represented ByGeorge E Schulman

Park Scottsdale, LLC Pro Se

Encinitas Ocean Investments, LLC Pro Se

El Jardin Atascadero Investments, Pro Se

Dillon Avenue 44, LLC Pro Se

CALCOMM CAPITAL, INC., a Represented ByNancy A ConroySean A OKeefe

NATIONAL FINANCIAL Represented ByNancy A Conroy

POINT CENTER MORTGAGE Represented ByCarlos F Negrete - INACTIVE -Nancy A ConroyJonathan Seligmann Shenson

NATIONAL FINANCIAL Represented ByCarlos F Negrete - INACTIVE -Sean A OKeefe

Dan J. Harkey Represented ByPage 32 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Nancy A ConroySean A OKeefe

M. Gwen Melanson Represented ByNancy A Conroy

RENE ESPARZA Represented ByNancy A Conroy

DOES 1-30, inclusive Pro Se

16th Street San Diego Investors, Pro Se

6th & Upas Investments, LLC Pro Se

Altamonte Springs Church Pro Se

Andalucia Investors, LLC Pro Se

Anthem Office Investors, LLC Pro Se

Buckeye Investors, LLC Pro Se

Calhoun Investments, LLC Pro Se

Capital Hotel Investors, LLC Pro Se

Champagne Blvd Investors, LLC Represented ByJonathan Seligmann Shenson

Cobb Parkway Investments, LLC Pro Se

Deer Canyon Investments, LLC Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Howard B. Grobstein, Chapter 7 Represented ByJohn P. ReitmanRodger M. LandauRoye ZurMonica Rieder

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By

Page 33 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Rodger M. LandauRoye ZurKathy Bazoian PhelpsJohn P. ReitmanRobert G Wilson - SUSPENDED -Monica RiederJon L. DalbergMichael G SpectorPeter J. GurfeinJack A. ReitmanThomas A Maraz

Page 34 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Howard Grobstein, as Chapter 7 trustee v. POINT CENTER MORTGAGE Adv#: 8:16-01042

#16.00 Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion To Dismiss Counterclaim

160Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:Grant. Appearance is optional.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Defendant(s):

POINT CENTER MORTGAGE Represented ByNancy A ConroyLauren N GansJonathan Seligmann Shenson

Plaintiff(s):

Howard Grobstein, as Chapter 7 Represented ByRoye ZurJack A. Reitman

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented ByRodger M. LandauRoye ZurKathy Bazoian PhelpsJohn P. Reitman

Page 35 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Robert G Wilson - SUSPENDED -Monica RiederJon L. DalbergMichael G SpectorPeter J. GurfeinJack A. ReitmanThomas A Maraz

Page 36 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana




#17.00 Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint With Prejudice

38Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:These are motions, respectively, of Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr.

Cooper and Real Time Resolutions, Inc. under FRCP Rule 12(b) to Dismiss

for Failure to State a Claim Upon which relief may be granted. Although the

motions are given different numbers on the calendar, they involve nearly

identical questions of law and fact and so the analysis is combined in this

single memorandum. The motions were joined by Bank of America N.A. on

Oct. 1, 2019. The court’s tentative decision posted for the hearing August 8,

2019 is incorporated herein by reference; it dealt with the original complaint.

In that prior decision the court granted similar motions to dismiss but with

leave to amend. In that memorandum the court warned Plaintiff that if he

were serious about pursuing this action, he should seek counsel inasmuch as

the prior version of the complaint was largely unintelligible. But given

Plaintiff’s pro se status leniency was shown in the hope that the matter could

be resolved on its merits. However, the court warned that it would not

tolerate any more rambling and incomprehensible pleadings which present no

plain articulation in English of a theory for relief and amount to a waste of

time. But Plaintiff was either disinclined or unable to take this advice as his

First Amended Complaint filed September 12 is also unintelligible. Plaintiff

has filed a [Proposed] Second Amended Complaint on or about October 24,

2019 which appears to be his opposition to the motion (although he was not

given leave to amend again) because that document was attached to his

"Notice of Opposition and Request for a Hearing" filed that same date. The

court will therefore construe this [Proposed] Second Amended Complaint as

Tentative Ruling:

Page 37 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Plaintiff’s Opposition.

Although the [Proposed] Second Amended Complaint has the virtue of

being shorter and in (somewhat) plainer English, Plaintiff has still failed to

cure the problems for these reasons:

1. Plaintiff lacks standing. As the court tried to explain before, the wrongs

Plaintiff alleges all arose in connection with the Defendants’ attempts

to foreclose the mortgage held against the property commonly known

as 324 Via Promesa, San Clemente, which still to this date have not

resulted in an actual foreclosure sale. But it is rather clear that the

events complained of arose before May 14, 2019, the petition date,

which delayed the sale, so any claim for relief belongs to the appointed

Chapter 7 trustee. See e.g. Cusano v. Klein, 264 F. 3d 936, 945 (9th

Cir. 2001); Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp, 789 F.

2d 705, 708 (9th Cir. 1986); Griffin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 920 F. Supp

127, 130 (C.D. Cal. 1996). The claims for relief, if any, belong to the

estate and until the Trustee sells or abandons them, they cannot be

the basis for a complaint by debtor as is attempted here.

2. Defendants argue that the latest version is also barred by res judicata

in that the complaint seems to raise the same or very similar theories

as were dismissed with prejudice four years ago in adversary

proceeding #8:14-1201 TA. See Summerville v. Rojas (In re

Summerville), 361 B.R. 133, 142 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). This argument

could be conclusive if identity of the claims could be established, but

the court hesitates given the rambling nature of these various

complaints. It is somewhat unclear that the very same issues as

between the same parties were ruled on before. The [Proposed]

Second Amended Complaint is no model of clarity, but it seems to

suggest that the gravamen of the latest complaint (if that can be filed

as a complaint rather than merely as interpretive) involves some kind

Page 38 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


11:00 AMGary James SrokaCONT... Chapter 7of tender by the debtor, which was not responded to by the

Defendants. Allegedly, this tender occurred on or about September

2018, which of course came after the court’s ruling in the prior

adversary proceeding. While unclear, this theory of a res judicata

defense might not be conclusive for this reason. However, insofar as

the basis for the First Amended Complaint is in fact the same wrongful

foreclosure theory alleged in 2014, it is barred.

3. The privilege under Cal. Civ. Code §2924(d) relates to the publishing

and recording of notices required under California’s foreclosure laws

and would seem to cover NBS Default Services, the Defendant’s

foreclosure services company, since allegedly all that they are charged

with is recording and publishing the notices involved in a foreclosure.

Since nothing is alleged which would bring this entity outside of the

law’s protections in this respect, this is an independent ground to

dismiss as to NBS only.

4. No intelligible basis for a claim is stated. If Plaintiff is relying on the

unintelligible ramblings of the First Amended Complaint, no cognizable

basis for relief is stated within the standards set forth in Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-556 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). If the court is supposed to be

persuaded by the somewhat clearer recitation found in the [Proposed]

Second Amended complaint, the same problem remains, even

assuming it could/should be read retroactively to interpret the First

Amended Complaint [See ¶¶10 and 13-15 of First Amended Complaint

which seem to state a similar theory based on "tender"]. The court

agrees with the assessment offered by Defendant Real Time

Resolutions that the allegations in the [Proposed]Second Amended

Complaint are effectively a "word salad" devoid of any real meaning.

Page 39 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


11:00 AMGary James SrokaCONT... Chapter 7Plaintiff alleges only one charging claim, "First Claim for Declaratory

Relief," but, as is correctly argued by Defendants Nationstar, et al, this

is only a remedy, not a theory of relief. So, some other predicate for

employment of the remedy must be stated. See e.g. Stock West, Inc.

v. Confederated Tribes of the Coville Reservation, 873 F. 2d 1221,

1225 (9th Cir. 1989); Wood v. U.S., 2006 WL 2829829 at 1, n. 2 (E.D.

Cal. Sept. 29, 2006). But no such predicate for relief appears. As near

as the court can determine from the "Common Facts" found at page 3

of the [Proposed]Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he

made three (or four?) "tenders" by registered mail to the Defendants

and that these were "accepted" (apparently by alleged failure to

specifically reject). From this premise Plaintiff then alleges that a

"contract" was formed (is this eGJS02061961-05?) and so the

Defendants were wrongful in persisting with foreclosure. No allegation

is made as to what exactly was tendered, but one doubts that Plaintiff

means that the entire balance including accrued interest, fees etc., in

money (see page 2 of [Proposed] Second Amended Complaint); this is

a sum of about $1,038,496 according to the Mr. Cooper loan statement

dated 3/19/2019, of which $539,926 was the sum necessary to

reinstate. See Exhibit "A" attached to First Amended Complaint. Since

the petition in Chapter 7 was filed May 14, 2019, only about two

months later, one can only conclude that whatever was "tendered"

is/was not the full balance owed under the mortgage since the

Plaintiff’s schedules filed June 14, 2019 reveal no such sum of money

(or indeed anything close). In fact, the only assets of substance are

reported as the real property at Via Promesa and an alleged claim

against the Defendants described as "dispute re tendered real property

mortgages; pending Adv Compl., state and Federal actions?

6,600,000…" followed by some illegible handwriting.

5. While no specific reference in the [Proposed] Second Amended

Page 40 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


11:00 AMGary James SrokaCONT... Chapter 7Complaint is made to identify the "tenders" that are central to the

complaint, we can suppose that they are the same as identified

collectively in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff refers to account

numbers for the loans of Mr. Cooper 0617169545 and for Real Time

Resolutions 006358758, although the latter number appears nowhere

on Exhibit "A". The Cooper number was handwritten upon the

registered mail receipt card, presumably by Plaintiff, with the

handwritten words "tender issued discharging of Government

obligation." On the version marked "4th Tender" the words "4th tender

infuse(?) issued to 4th consideration Arbitration Demanded" (sic)

appear. Mysterious reference is made to something called "Contract

Agreement No: eGJS02061961-05." None of this is explained, but the

court agrees with Real Time Resolutions that insofar as Plaintiff is

alleging that the bank Defendants had some kind of duty to respond to

whatever was contained in "Contract Agreement No:

eGJS02061961-05", or even to respond to his scribblings upon the

loan statements and certified mail cards attached as Exhibit "A" to the

First Amended Complaint, this is incorrect. Silence alone does not give

consent (Norcia v. Samsung Telecoms Am. LLC, 845 F. 3d 1279, 1284

(9th Cir. 2017)), even by estoppel for there must not only be the right,

but the duty, to speak before the failure to do so can estop a person

from afterward setting up the truth." Wold v. League of the Cross, Inc.,

114 Cal. App. 474, 479 (1931). A possible exception to the estoppel

by silence rule might exist if there were special circumstances, such as

a confidential or fiduciary relationship. See e.g. Moore v. State Bd. of

Control, 112 Cal. App. 4th 371, 385 (2003). But Plaintiff alleges no

basis for such a confidential or fiduciary relationship here. Indeed, it is

very much the opposite since Plaintiff had before sued the Defendants

(and lost) and in any event a bank is not a fiduciary to its borrower.

The proposition that a borrower on a distressed loan can, by writing to

the foreclosing lender some proposal and then sending by certified

mail, even four times, and claim satisfaction of the loan upon failure of

Page 41 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


11:00 AMGary James SrokaCONT... Chapter 7the lender to respond, is preposterous and obviously does not state a

claim upon which relief can be granted.

6. It is obvious to the court that Plaintiff has no articulable clam for relief.

What does appear is largely unintelligible, and the intelligible portions

strain credulity. An earlier opportunity to amend was given but proved

unproductive as the First Amended Complaint is also insufficient and, if

one counts the [Proposed]Second Amended Adversary Complaint, this

is three bites at the apple. But it is more, if one views the several

versions of the earlier complaint found in adversary proceeding #

8:14-1201 TA. Moreover, even if that were not true, Plaintiff obviously

lacks standing. The law is lenient when dealing with pro se litigants, but

there are limits to the court’s patience. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F,

2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992). The court sees absolutely no basis for

further indulging this Plaintiff so leave to further amend is not

appropriate.

Grant without leave to amend

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Defendant(s):

Mr Cooper Represented ByDane W Exnowski

Bank of America N A Represented ByEthan Schatz


Page 42 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented BySharon L HightowerNathaniel R Lucey


Plaintiff(s):

Gary Sroka Pro Se

Trustee(s):


Page 43 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana




#18.00 Real Time Solutions, Inc's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint

42Docket

Tentative for 11/7/19:See #17.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Defendant(s):

Mr Cooper Represented ByDane W Exnowski

Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented BySharon L HightowerNathaniel R Lucey


Bank of America N A Represented ByEthan Schatz


Plaintiff(s):

Gary Sroka Pro Se

Trustee(s):


Page 44 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


2:00 PMHoag Urgent Care-Tustin, Inc.8:17-13077 Chapter 11

Hoag Urgent Care - Anaheim Hills, Inc. et al v. Newport Healthcare Center Adv#: 8:17-01241

#19.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint for: 1. Disallowance of Claims; 2. Invalidation of Security Interest; 3. Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers; 4. Recovery of Avoided Transfers; 5. Preservation of Avoided Transfers; and 6. Declaratory Relief(set from order entered 6-3-19 document #145 vacating the pre-trial conf. and setting a combined s/c & damage hearing to held on 8-01-19)(con't from 9-26-19)

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12-19-19 AT 11:00 A.M. PER ORDER ON SECOND STIPULATION AMENDING ORDER SETTING DAMAGES PHASE SCHEDULE AND CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE ENTERED 10-24-19

Tentative for 9/26/19:See #21 & 24

----------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 8/1/19:See #20

----------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 10/4/18:Deadline for completing discovery: January 19, 2019Last date for filing pre-trial motions: February 11, 2019Pre-trial conference on: March 28, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.Joint pre-trial order due per local rules.

--------------------------------------------------


Tentative Ruling:

Page 45 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


2:00 PMHoag Urgent Care-Tustin, Inc.CONT... Chapter 11

Status conference continued to September 27, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. At the very least we need to know whether the Trustee will be substituting in as real party in interest. The court expects this will be done (or specifically disclaimed) by the continued hearing.

-----------------------------------------------

Tentative for 5/24/18:See calendar #21 at 11:00AM.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Hoag Urgent Care-Tustin, Inc. Represented ByAshley M McDowMichael T DelaneyFahim Farivar

Defendant(s):

Newport Healthcare Center LLC Pro Se

Hoag Memorial Hospital Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Hoag Urgent Care - Anaheim Hills, Represented ByAshley M McDow

Hoag Urgent Care - Huntington Represented ByAshley M McDow

Hoag Urgent Care - Orange, Inc. Represented ByAshley M McDow

Hoag Urgent Care-Tustin, Inc. Represented ByAshley M McDow

Your Neighborhood Urgent Care, Represented ByAshley M McDow

Page 46 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


2:00 PMHoag Urgent Care-Tustin, Inc.8:17-13077 Chapter 7

Hoag Urgent Care - Anaheim Hills, Inc. et al v. Newport Healthcare Center Adv#: 8:17-01241

#20.00 Evidentiary Hearing Re: Damages Phase (set from order approving stipulation to vacate pre-trial conference and set damages phase schedule entered 6-03-19)(cont'd from 9-26-19)

0Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12-19-19 AT 11:00 A.M. PER ORDER ON SECOND STIPULATION AMENDING ORDER SETTING DAMAGES PHASE SCHEDULE AND CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE ENTERED 10-24-19

Tentative for 9/26/19:These are, respectively, the damages phase of the Motion for

Summary Judgment and a Motion to exclude "certain testimony" of Charles

Klaus. They are considered together in the same memorandum as they

concern inter-locking issues. The court granted Counterclaimants’ motion for

summary judgment on their conversion claim May 30, 2019 but held a further

hearing on damages (which had not been addressed in the motion) on

August 1, 2019. The court at that later hearing rejected the Counterclaimants

measure of damages as not based on what the court deemed the correct

measure, i.e. fair market value. Now we consider the damages phase a

second time, this time supported by expert testimony from Michael P. Rice,

director of asset appraisals for Medical Valuation Advisors, Inc. This appraisal

is opposed by the Amster parties who offer the counter declaration of Charles

Klaus, president of ABC Services Group. It is that testimony of Mr. Klaus that

Counterclaimants seek to exclude in #25.

The overarching concern of the court is that the damages portion of

this proceeding is not amenable to summary adjudication. Even giving the

most charitable characterization of the Rice appraisal, it raises and assumes

numerous issues of fact. The court agrees there are legitimate disputes over

Tentative Ruling:

Page 47 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



the age and condition of the equipment. The fact that a definitive list of make,

model and age of equipment apparently does not exist (or was not provided)

itself creates issues of fact. Of course, depreciation is always a major

concern in any appraisal of fair market value. Condition of items is also a

question which is hampered here because neither side seems to know where

the items are in order to make them available for inspection (but the court

does not expect the Amster parties to take much consolation in that as the

disappearance apparently was on "their watch"). The whole question of

changes to an earlier list prepared by Expert Equipment Appraisers dated

March 2, 2017 augmented by photographs (as revealed in the Rice report)

requires more explanation. In sum, the court will set an evidentiary hearing.

On the Klaus declaration, the court notes that he never actually opines

on the question of value. He only raises legitimate issues about methodology

in the Rice appraisal. Counterclaimants argue that because Mr. Klaus is

currently occupied as an auctioneer, not an appraiser, he cannot qualify as an

expert on any basis relevant here. The court notes that he was certified as an

appraiser at one point and reports that he has conducted over 100 appraisals

over the last 18 years. While his qualifications to give a current valuation on

medical equipment might be thin, the court finds that his knowledge about

appraisal methodology is enough to conclude that his testimony has value to

the court within the meaning of Rule 702 over that of a layperson, sufficient to

accept an opinion on that narrow question.

Continue for evidentiary hearing. Deny motion to exclude testimony of

Charles Klaus.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 8/1/19:This is Counterclaimants Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and

Newport Healthcare Center LLC’s (collectively "Counterclaimants"), motion for

an order liquidating damages owed by Counterclaim Defendants Your

Neighborhood Urgent Care and the Hoag Urgent Care entities (collectively

Page 48 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



"Counterclaim Defendants" or "YNUC"), upon successfully prosecuting by

summary judgment their counterclaim for the conversion of the Missing

Equipment. The damages assessment relies upon the testimony of Mr.

Michael P. Rice, a certified Machinery and Equipment Appraiser.

Counterclaimants assert, based on Mr. Rice’s appraisal, that they are owed

damages for the unlawful conversion of the Missing Equipment in the amount

of no less than $335,665 as replacement value of the Missing Equipment plus

costs involved in pursuing the Missing Equipment. Counterclaimants argue

that YNUC neither employed their own expert to give another independent

appraisal of the Missing Equipment, nor did they elect to depose Mr. Rice.

Therefore, Counterclaimants assert, Mr. Rice’s appraisal is the only

admissible expert evidence on the value of the Missing Equipment.

YNUC in contrast argues that the court should not accept Mr. Rice’s

appraisal of the value of the Equipment because the appraisal used methods

ill-suited to accurately reflecting the damages allowed by law. Specifically,

YNUC asserts that the appraisal is flawed because Mr. Rice used the

replacement value of new equipment, rather than on the fair market value of

the Missing Equipment at the time of conversion.

1. What Is the Appropriate Method for Assessing Damages?

The main question before the court is, what method of assessing

damages is appropriate under these facts? Counterclaimants cite Southland

Corp. v. Emerald Oil, Inc. 845 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1988); 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS

21850 and Trans Container Servs. (BASEL) A.G. v. Sec. Forwarders, Inc.,

752 F.2d 483, 488 (9th Cir. 1985) for the general proposition that

"replacement value" is the proper method of assessing damages and that the

purpose of "replacement value" is to make the victim of conversion whole.

Counterclaimants’ two cases do not convince the court that damages

should be calculated based on the appraisal of the Missing Equipment as

though the equipment were brand new. It is true that the court in Trans

Page 49 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Container noted that the district court did not err in awarding conversion

damages based on the "new value" of the converted property despite some of

the converted containers not being new. The Trans Container court stated:

The trial court made no error in setting the replacement value of the

boxes at $ 180 each. True, some of the boxes were not new, but the

court had the power to award Security replacement value in order to

make whole the victim of conversion. This court accepts the trial court's

findings of fact on this score. Trans Container at 488.

However, the court doubts that Trans Container can be read quite so broadly

considering that damages assessments are highly fact specific, as was the

court’s damages analysis in Trans Container. Instead, the court believes that

YNUC has more correctly stated the law of damages based on conversion of

property. Indeed, YNUC cites to Cal. Civ. Code §3336, which provides:

The detriment caused by the wrongful conversion of personal property

is presumed to be:

First—The value of the property at the time of the conversion, with the

interest from that time, or, an amount sufficient to indemnify the party

injured for the loss which is the natural, reasonable and proximate

result of the wrongful act complained of and which a proper degree of

prudence on his part would not have averted; and

Second—A fair compensation for the time and money properly

expended in pursuit of the property.

The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this statute as follows:

Although the first part of section 3336 appears to provide for

alternative measures of recovery, the first of the two measures, namely

the value of the property converted at the time and place of conversion

Page 50 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana


2:00 PMHoag Urgent Care-Tustin, Inc.CONT... Chapter 7with interest from that time, is generally considered to be the

appropriate measure of damages in a conversion action…. The

determination of damages under the alternative provision is resorted to

only where the determination on the basis of value at the time of the

conversion would be manifestly unjust. Tyrone Pacific International,

Inc. v. MV Eurychili, 658 F.2d 664, 666 (9th Cir. 1981).

As noted earlier, the appraisal performed by Mr. Rice explained that his

appraisals were based on the value of the Missing Equipment as if the

equipment were brand new. However, many courts, including the court in

Southland Corp. (cited by Counterclaimants), have observed:

Generally, the appropriate measure of damages for conversion is the

fair market value of the property, but "[w]here proof establishes an

injury beyond that which would be adequately compensated by the

value of the property and interest, the court may award such amounts

as will indemnify for all proximate reasonable loss caused by the

wrongful act." Southland Corp. v. Emerald Oil, Inc., 1988 U.S. App.

LEXIS 21850 at *1-2.

YNUC correctly and persuasively argues that Mr. Rice’s appraisal is well off

the mark because the equipment, when it went missing, was several years old

(8 years old?) and, like almost all equipment, would have depreciated in value

(at least somewhat). No evidence (or even argument) is offered by

Counterclaimants suggesting that the alternative approach found in Cal. Civ.

Code §3336 is more appropriate. Therefore, the proper assessment of

damages should reflect an approximation of depreciation, but Mr. Rice’s

appraisal contains no such analysis. The court notes that YNUC takes issue

with other aspects of Mr. Rice’s appraisal, including that Mr. Rice never

actually physically inspected the Missing Equipment to get an accurate sense

of its condition. However, such an inquiry was rendered largely moot when

the equipment disappeared; instead, the court would expect a principled

discussion of the useful life of such items as the denominator with 8 years (or

Page 51 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



the actual age) the numerator. The court is unpersuaded that the valuation of

the equipment in Mr. Rice’s report complies with §3336, so the court is much

less concerned with the granular details of Mr. Rice’s appraisal in favor of the

correct statutory approach.

The court is also not certain whether Mr. Rice’s appraisal is the only

measure of damages Counterclaimants are asserting, or whether Mr. Sanford

Smith’s valuation, as the owner of the Missing Equipment, is also being

asserted. Clarification is needed on this point because Mr. Rice’s valuation is

much higher than Mr. Smith’s estimation of the Missing Equipment’s value (in

the region of $217,000, dkt # 95, p. 12). Only after a more accurate damages

assessment is proffered can the court properly determine whether any other

damages are warranted pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §3336. If

Counterclaimants are claiming costs involved in pursuit of their property, proof

of those costs should be provided.

YNUC argues that the court should use the valuation of the Missing

Equipment provided in the HUC Debtors’ schedules because, as they were

signed under penalty of perjury, the court can rely on the accuracy of such

information. However, the court is uncomfortable with using the HUC

Debtors’ schedules to assess damages because it is not clear what the bases

for those appraisals were. In any event, YNUC opines that Counterclaimants’

damages are no more than $78,645. Thus, there is still clearly a need for one

more independent appraisal of the Missing Equipment.

2. Attorney’s Fees

The question of whether attorney’s fees should be awarded has

returned. Unfortunately, although instructed by the court to do so at the May

2, 2019 hearing, Counterclaimants still have not adequately addressed the

Page 52 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



attorney’s fees issue. In its adopted tentative ruling for May 2, 2019, on the

issue of attorney’s fees, this court stated:

Counterclaimants argue they have prevailed at every turn throughout

this adversary proceeding whether it was as to YNUC or the debtors.

They have obtained relief from stay in the main bankruptcy case and

obtained summary judgment in their favor in the fraudulent transfer

action. But, a relief of stay is generally held not to be "on the contract"

and thus will not support an award of fees. See e.g. In re Menco

Pacific, 2019 WL 653086 (Feb. 15, 2019). Tort actions are generally

not "on the contract" but this may not be a hard and fast rule and can

involve some nuance; it may depend on how much reference is made

to the terms of the agreement in sorting out whether liability was

established. See e.g. In re Mac-Go Corp. 541 B.R. 706, 715 (Bankr.

N.D.Cal. 2015) citing In re Penrod, 802 F. 3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2015). But

Counterclaimants may be arguing that, by the plain language of the

Sublease Agreements quoted above, they are entitled to attorneys’

fees insofar as the litigation is in connection with the Subleases and

related documents from YNUC as effectively a guarantor, or as a

signatory, not as a tortfeasor.

In sum, the entitlement to attorneys’ fees remains unclear.

Counterclaimants do not do sufficiently tie what has happened here to a

cognizable right to attorney’s fees, i.e. a recovery "on the contract" whether

the theory of recovery is tort or contract. Is this essentially a breach of

contract claim against YNUC as signatory, or as guarantor under one or more

of the agreements discussed herein? But insofar as the tort of conversion is

the sole basis for recovery, that may be problematic. But to add to the

confusion, Civil Code §3336, second part, suggests that "time and money

properly expended" is also compensable. However, the case law suggests

that the special damages alluded to in §3336 do not include attorney’s fees.

For example, in Haines v. Parra, 193 Cal. App. 3d 1553, 1559 (1987), the

Page 53 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



court observed:

The general rule is that attorneys’ fees are not a proper item of

recovery from the adverse party, either as costs, damages or

otherwise, unless there is express statutory authority or

contractual liability therefor [citations]. Section 3336 of the Civil

Code, which sets out the measure of damages in conversion

actions, does not expressly provide for attorneys’ fees for the

converting of property. It has long been held that such fees are

not within the rule of damages provided for by that section[.]

The Haines court then explained:

Upon remand, Haines may be able to demonstrate that he did

properly expend some time and money in pursuit of the

converted property for which he is entitled to a fair

compensation. "To entitle a party to such compensation the

[evidence] should tend to show that money was properly paid

out and time properly lost in pursuit of the property, and how

much." (Sherman v. Finch (1886) 71 Cal. 68, 72 [11 P. 847].)

Such evidence should be definite and certain. (Id. at pp. 71-72.)

Expenses "incurred in preparation for litigation and not in pursuit

of property" cannot be allowed as damages under Civil Code

section 3336. (Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles v.

Lutz (9th Cir. 1963) 322 F.2d 348, 352.) Additionally, any such

compensation must be fair, i.e., reasonable. To actually incur

expenses of $ 10,000 in pursuit of $ 4,000 seems to this court to

be inherently unreasonable. Haines at 1559.

As also noted above, the recovery of attorneys’ fees in bankruptcy

proceedings is somewhat muddled after the Penrod decision.

In any event there would need to be admissible evidence as to the

amount of fees requested, and the motion is still not supported by any

Page 54 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



showing of attributable time entries and the like.

Deny without prejudice to renewal once properly supported

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Hoag Urgent Care-Tustin, Inc. Represented ByAshley M McDowMichael T DelaneyFahim FarivarTeresa C ChowTiffany Payne Geyer

Defendant(s):

Newport Healthcare Center LLC Represented ByRandye B SorefTanya Behnam

Hoag Memorial Hospital Represented ByRandye B SorefTanya Behnam

Plaintiff(s):

Hoag Urgent Care - Anaheim Hills, Represented ByAshley M McDowFahim FarivarTeresa C ChowElizabeth A Green

Hoag Urgent Care - Huntington Represented ByAshley M McDowFahim FarivarTeresa C ChowElizabeth A Green

Hoag Urgent Care - Orange, Inc. Represented ByAshley M McDow

Page 55 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM



Santa Ana



Fahim FarivarTeresa C ChowElizabeth A Green

Hoag Urgent Care-Tustin, Inc. Represented ByAshley M McDowFahim FarivarTeresa C ChowElizabeth A Green

Your Neighborhood Urgent Care, Represented ByAshley M McDowTeresa C Chow

Trustee(s):

Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented ByCaroline DjangCathy TaElizabeth A Green

Page 56 of 5611/6/2019 4:27:11 PM

Date post:	06-Nov-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of...

Documents