Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC650512, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC650512    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   January 8, 2025                                              

CASE NAME:           Jason Harley Bobson v. Keith Bae, et al.

CASE NO.:                BC650512

MOTION TO REMOVE, REPLACE, OR SURCHARGE COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER DUE TO EXPRESSED PREJUDICE, BIAS AND NEGLIGENT CONDUCT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Keith Bae

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Court Appointed Receiver Stephen J. Conell

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An Order to remove, replace, or surcharge court appointed receiver, Stephen J. Donell and his counsel Michael E. Bubman and the MBN Law Firm, due to expressed prejudice, bias and negligent conduct.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to Remove, Replace, or Surcharge Court Appointed Receiver is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On February 15, 2017, Plaintiff Jason Harley Bobson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Keith Bae (“Defendant.”) The complaint involves operations of a small restaurant business based on a partnership agreement between the parties.

On May 3, 2017, Defendant filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration.

On September 27, 2019, the Arbitration was dismissed due to the parties’ default, and on September 30, this court vacated the arbitration order and scheduled a Jury Trial on September 22, 2020.  

On October 31, 2019, Birdies, Inc. (“Birdies”) filed a Cross-Complaint against Bobson and Does in his individual and derivative capacity. 

On November 15, 2019, Defendant Keith Bae filed an Answer.

On December 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the Cross-Complaint which the court GRANTED.

On February 14, 2020, Cross-Complainant Birdies, Inc. filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint which the court GRANTED. Cross-Complainant subsequently filed a cross-complaint on July 9, 2020. Plaintiff Bobson filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint on September 3, 2020.

Jury Trial commenced on November 8, 2021 and concluded on November 15, 2021. Judgment on General Verdict was entered on November 29, 2021 in favor of Defendants.

On January 11, 2022, the court ORDERED the partnership dissolved.

On August 17, 2022, the court ORDERED the appointment of a receiver to wind up the partnership.

On August 27, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Order to Remove, Replace, or Surcharge Court Appointed Receiver. On December 24, 2024, the receiver filed an opposition. Replies were due on or before December 31, 2024. As of January 3, 2025, the court has not received a reply.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 584, a court may appoint a receiver pendente lite if the evidence shows that property jointly owned by partners or others is in danger of being materially injured, where a corporation is insolvent, in imminent danger thereof, or has forfeited corporate rights, or in all other cases where the Court finds as necessary to preserve the property or rights of any party.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 564, subds. (b)(1), (b)(6), (b)(9).)

A receivership naturally terminates upon completion of the duties for which the receiver was appointed or at any other time upon court order. (See Carpenson v. Najarian (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 856, 862 [noting that receivers appointed to preserve the status quo pending trial terminates upon judgment after trial.)

ANALYSIS:

Request for Judicial Notice

The court DENIES Defendant’s request for judicial notice.

Motion

Defendant contends that the receiver and Plaintiff’s counsel acted unlawfully, there are defects in the receiver’s management, a new receiver is necessary to prevent prejudice to Defendant, a receiver is no longer necessary, and reevaluation of the need for a receiver is warranted. The receiver argues this is another belated motion for reconsideration consisting of conclusory allegations.

Defendant moves under Code Civ. Proc. (CCP) § 128(a)(5) which provides that the court has authority: “To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.”[1]

Here, it is not necessary to terminate or modify the receivership at this time because there is insufficient evidence that the Receiver is biased or intentionally mismanaging Birdie’s—and despite evidence showing Defendant’s interference with the Receiver’s duties to wrap up the partnership.  The relationship between Defendant and the Receiver admittedly appears to be rocky.  But the evidence is thin to prove that the Receiver is a partisan for Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the court DENIES the Motion for Order to Remove, Replace, or Surcharge Court Appointed Receiver.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      Motion to Remove, Replace, or Surcharge Court Appointed Receiver is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             January 8, 2025                       _______­­­­­­­­­­___________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court