Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC617750, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC617750    Hearing Date: January 15, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Bonnie Duboff, on behalf of herself and other limited partners of 245 Spalding Partners, L.P.        

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Linda Schemer, as an individual, as trustee of the Surviving Trustor’s Trust under the Schermer Family Trust, as trustee of the deceased trustor’s trust under the Schermer Family Trust, and as trustee of the Marital Trust under the Schermer Family Trust

Motion for Appointment of Receiver

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Bonnie Duboff (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order appointing a post-judgment receiver over 245 Spalding Partners L.P. (“245 Spalding”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 564, subdivisions (b)(4), (b)(1), and (b)(9).  Defendant Linda Schemer, as an individual, as trustee of the Surviving Trustor’s trust under the Schermer Family Trust, as trustee of the deceased trustor’s trust under the Schermer Family Trust, and as trustee of the Marital Trust under the Schermer Family Trust (“Defendant”) has opposed Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of a receiver.

“Because the appointment of a receiver transfers property—or, in this case, a business—‘out of the hands of its owners’ and into the hands of a receiver [citation], the appointment of a receiver is a very ‘drastic,’ ‘harsh,’ and costly remedy that is to be ‘exercised sparingly and with caution.’”  (Medipro Medical Staffing LLC v. Certified Nursing Registry, Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 622, 628 [internal citations omitted].)  “Due to the ‘extraordinary’ nature of this remedy and the special costs it imposes, courts are strongly discouraged—although not strictly prohibited—from appointing a receiver unless the more intrusive oversight of a receiver is a ‘necessity’ because other, less intrusive remedies are either ‘ “inadequate or unavailable.” ’”  (Ibid.)

First, upon consideration of the evidence and argument presented by the parties, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant’s planned renovation of 245 Spalding is harmful to or will cause damage to the property, such that Plaintiff has not shown that the drastic remedy of appointing a receiver is necessary (1) on the ground that property is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured, (2) to preserve 245 Spalding during the pendency of Defendant’s appeal, or (3) to preserve 245 Spalding or to preserve the rights of Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 564, subds. (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(9); Medipro Medical Staffing LLC, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 628; Weisskopf Decl., Ex. B, Schermer Jan. 16, 2024 Decl. in Opp. to Pl. Mot. to Require Bond, ¶ 9 [stating that she “need[s] to continue with the renovation without delay”].)

Second, the court acknowledges that Plaintiff has presented evidence establishing that Defendant received a letter dated June 10, 2024 from code enforcement attorneys and prosecutors for the City of Beverly Hills, in which they stated that (1) Code Enforcement Officer Rodriguez inspected unit 104 of 245 Spalding and confirmed several substandard and unsanitary conditions, (2) Rodriguez issued three notices of violation to Defendant since April 29, 2024, which Defendant ignored, and (3) Defendant was incurring criminal and civil liability for maintaining unit 104 in an unlawful condition.  (Duboff Decl., Ex. A, pp. 4 -5.)  However, Defendant has presented evidence establishing that she did not receive the mailed letters (but did receive the emailed June 10, 2024 letter submitted in support of Plaintiff’s motion), and that she has adequately addressed the concerns with unit 104.  (Schermer Decl., ¶ 8.) 

Thus, after considering the content of the June 10, 2024 letter and Defendant’s declaration addressing the issues raised therein, the court finds that the evidence does not show that the appointment of a receiver is necessary (1) on the ground that property is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured, (2) to preserve 245 Spalding during the pendency of Defendant’s appeal, or (3) to preserve 245 Spalding or to preserve the rights of Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 564, subds. (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(9); Medipro Medical Staffing LLC, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 628.)

The court therefore exercises its discretion to deny Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a receiver.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 564, subds. (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(9).)     

ORDER

            The court denies plaintiff Bonnie Duboff’s motion for appointment of a receiver.

            The court orders defendant Linda Schemer, as an individual, as trustee of the Surviving Trustor’s trust under the Schermer Family Trust, as trustee of the deceased trustor’s trust under the Schermer Family Trust, and as trustee of the Marital Trust under the Schermer Family Trust, to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 15, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court