Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: PC057534, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: PC057534 Hearing Date: August 24, 2022 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 8/24/22
Case #PC057534
MOTION TO
SUBSTITUTE PLAINTIFF
Motion filed on 3/3/22.
MOVING PARTY: Silicon Valley Bank
RESPONDING PARTY: all other parties
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order
substituting Silicon Valley Bank, a California state-chartered financial
institution, as successor-in-interest to Plaintiff Boston Private Bank &
Trust Co.
RULING: The unopposed motion is granted.
Silicon Valley
Bank is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory
Electronic Filing for Civil. When
e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which
are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19
First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Silicon Valley Bank has failed to bookmark
the declaration and exhibits attached to the motion Failure to comply with these requirements in
the future may result in matters being
placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in
compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the
imposition of sanctions.
On 1/24/17, Boston Private Bank & Trust Co. (“Boston
Private”) filed this action for, among other things, appointment of receiver,
judicial foreclosure, and breach of guaranty against Defendants Matthew R.
Rogers (“M. Rogers”) and Sarah L. Rogers (“S. Rogers”), individually and as
trustees of the Rogers Family Trust dated March 25, 2003 (“Rogers Trust”),
Oakgrove Park, LLC (“Oakgrove”), and Robert Masino (“Masino”), individually and
as trustee of the Masino Family Trust dated June 22, 1977 (“Masino Trust”)
(collectively, “Defendants”).
On 1/26/17, pursuant to Boston Private’s ex parte application,
the Court entered an order (“Receivership Order”) appointing Leon J. Owens
(“Old Receiver”) as the receiver for Property which was confirmed at a 2/15/17
Order to Show Cause hearing. On 2/23/18,
the Court granted Boston Private’s application for an order substituting Josh
Hodeda (“Receiver”) for the Old Receiver.
On 1/15/20, Boston Private filed a Motion to Surcharge
Receiver which was scheduled for hearing on 2/18/20. Pursuant to stipulations, the hearing on that
motion has been continued multiple times and is currently scheduled for hearing
on 10/11/22.
On 3/3/22, Silicon Valley Bank filed the instant motion
seeking an order substituting Silicon Valley Bank, a California state-chartered
financial institution, as successor-in-interest to Plaintiff Boston Private
Bank & Trust Co. Specifically,
Silicon Valley Bank seeks an order: (1) Designating
Silicon Valley Bank to be the plaintiff and real party in interest in this
action in place of Boston Private; (2) Changing the caption of this matter to
reflect that the plaintiff is “SILICON VALLEY BANK, a California
state-chartered commercial bank”; (3) Deeming
Frandzel Robins Bloom & Csato, L.C. to be substituted-in as counsel of
record for Silicon Valley in this action without the need for any further
action; and (4) For such other relief as the Court deems just and
appropriate.
The hearing
on this motion was originally scheduled for 7/18/22. On that date, the matter was continued to
8/24/22 due to defects in notice as to certain parties. (See 7/18/22 Minute Order).
On 7/19/22,
Silicon Valley Bank filed a Notice of Continuance of Motion by Silicon Valley
Bank to Substitute Itself As Plaintiff and Successor-In-Interest to Plaintiff
Boston Private Bank & Trust Company and a Supplemental Proof of Service for
the motion and related request for judicial notice. The foregoing documents and attached proofs
of service cure the service defects noted by the Court in its 7/18/22
ruling.
No
oppositions/responses to the motion have been filed.