On 01/14/2016 CWR HOLDINGS LLC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against BOMEL SAN DIEGO EQUITIES LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC MARMARO and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
****7132
01/14/2016
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MARC MARMARO
EDWARD B. MORETON
CWR HOLDINGS LLC
RECHNITZ ROBERT
DOES 1 THROUGH 20
BOMEL SAN DIEGO EQUITIES LLC
WVJP 2018-3 LP
RECHNITZ SHLOMO
DESEIENS TRUDY
KOROBKIN EZEKIEL
BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
CROSBY PETER
YOUNG PAUL PHILIP
YOUNG PAUL P.
AIRES TIMOTHY CARL
3/16/2020: Affidavit for Order for Appearance and Examination of a Third Person - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITORS' APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF TH
2/19/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)
2/10/2020: Notice of Ruling
2/5/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO SHLOMO RECHNITZS MOTION TO QUASH ORDER OF EXAMINATION AND SUBPOENA OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
2/5/2020: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE JANE HONG- ELSEY, CSR#11975
2/5/2020: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER TONI FENIMORE, CSR#6661
2/5/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF PAUL P. YOUNG IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO SHLOMO RECHNITZS MOTION TO QUASH ORDER OF EXAMINATION AND SUBPOENA OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
2/6/2020: Notice of Ruling
2/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)
3/18/2020: Affidavit for Order for Appearance and Examination of a Third Person - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITORS' APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF TH
3/16/2020: Affidavit for Order for Appearance and Examination of a Third Person - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITORS' APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF TH
3/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)
3/5/2020: Notice of Ruling
3/5/2020: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RE: THIRD PARTY SHLOMO RECHNITZ'S MOTION TO QUASH ORDER OF EXAMINATION AND SUBPOENA OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
2/19/2020: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER RE: RONALD L. COOK, CSR #13928
2/19/2020: Writ of Execution - WRIT OF EXECUTION (LOS ANGELES)
2/11/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH ORDER OF EXAMINATION AND SUBPOENA OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
2/11/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF AVI WAGNER IN SUPPORT
Hearing03/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 37 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination
DocketSubpoena & Proof of Service; Filed by WVJP 2018-3, LP (Assignee)
DocketSubpoena & Proof of Service; Filed by WVJP 2018-3, LP (Assignee)
DocketNotice of Rejection - Post Judgment; Filed by Clerk
DocketApplication and Order for Appearance and Examination; Filed by WVJP 2018-3, LP (Assignee)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination - Held
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination)); Filed by Clerk
DocketNotice (of Failure to Appear After Valid Service of Subpoenaes); Filed by WVJP 2018-3, LP (Assignee)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination - Not Held - Vacated by Court
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANGEMENT CONFERENCE
DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by CWR Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by CWR Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR (1) BREACH OF PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT; ETC
DocketSUMMONS
DocketComplaint; Filed by CWR Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff)
Case Number: BC607132 Hearing Date: September 22, 2020 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: September 22, 2020
CASE NUMBER: BC607132
CASE NAME: CWR Holdings LLC v. Bomel San Diego Equities, LLC, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Judgment Creditor/Assignee of Record WVJP 2018-3, LP
OPPOSING PARTIES: Defendants, Bomel San Diego Equities, LLC and Robert Rechnitz
TRIAL DATE: None, Default Judgment entered August 17, 2016
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Limited Receiver
OPPOSITION: September 10, 2020
REPLY: September 15, 2020
TENTATIVE: WVJP’s motion for appointment of a limited receivership is DENIED. WVJP to give notice.
Background
This action arises out of a Profit Sharing Agreement between Plaintiff, CWR Holdings, LLC (“CWR”) and Defendant, Bomel San Diego Equities, LLC (“Bomel”). Pursuant to this agreement, Bomel allegedly agreed to pay CWR $612,500.00 plus a deemed yield on such amount outstanding equivalent to 10% per annum, plus a “Profit Component” as defined in the agreement. Further, Defendant Robert Rechnitz (“Mr. Rechnitz”) allegedly issued a written Guarantee on January 30, 2014 guaranteeing Bomel’s obligations to CWR. Despite these agreements, CWR alleges that Bomel failed to pay as agreed. CWR further alleges that although it gave notice to Bomel and Mr. Rechnitz of Bomel’s failure to pay, neither defendant has cured the default.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of profit-sharing agreement against Bomel, (2) breach of guarantee against Mr. Rechnitz.
On August 17, 2016, the court entered default judgment in this action. On December 8, 2016, amended judgment was entered in this action as follows:
Damages: $612,500
Prejudgment interest: $166,969.17
Attorney’s fees: $8,015.00
Costs: $435
Total: $787,919.17
Judgment Creditor/Assignee of Record WVJP 2018-3, LP (“WVJP”) now moves for the appointment of a limited receiver. Defendants Bomel and Mr. Rechnitz (“Defendants”) oppose the motion.
Discussion
Legal Standard
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 564, subdivision (b)(4), a receiver may be appointed after judgment, “to carry the judgment into effect,” or “to dispose of the property according to the judgment, or to preserve it during the pendency of an appeal, or pursuant to the Enforcement of Judgments Law.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 564, subdivision (b)(3)-(b)(4).) Additionally, Section 708.620 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:
“The court may appoint a receiver to enforce the judgment where the judgment creditor shows that, considering the interests of both the judgment creditor and judgment debtor, the appointment of a receiver is a reasonable method to obtain the fair and orderly satisfaction of the judgment.”
Receivers are agents of the court and may only be appointed when authorized by statute. (Marsch v. Williams (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 238, 247-248.) “Appointment of a receiver is a drastic remedy to be employed only in exceptional circumstances.” (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 734, 744.) Where appropriate, “[a] court may appoint a ‘limited purpose receiver,’ leaving the parties to operate remaining aspects of a business.” (Gold v. Gold (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 791, 802.)
Analysis
WVJP requests that the court appoint Stephen J. Donnell as a limited purpose receiver as specified in its Proposed Order, for the purpose of seizing “bomelco.com.” (Motion, 5-8.) WVJP’s proposed order indicates that all of the following is requested:
Receiver is to seize and take control of Bomelco.com;
Receiver is to investigate, seize, supervise, manage, monitor and/or sell Bomelco.com and any associated email addresses and websites;
Defendants and/or anyone acting on their behalf are to be enjoined from destroying or spoliating any documents related to the receiver’s seizing of Bomelco.com;
Defendants and/or anyone else must immediately turn over passwords and access information the receiver;
Receiver is permitted to apply for further instructions or powers necessary to enable the receiver to “perform his duties.”
(see Proposed Order in Support of Motion.) WVJP relies on Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini (N.D. Cal. 2007) 621 F.Supp.2d 773 (Office Depot) in support of the argument that a limited receiver is warranted in this instance to take control of bomelco.com.
WVJP’s reliance is misplaced. Office Depot defines whether a domain name is appropriately considered “property” such that a receiver can be appointed, and where the domain name can be considered located for purposes of determining whether a motion for appointment of receiver is appropriate. (Id. at 775-778.) Although Office Depot does indicate that appointing a receiver was appropriate in that instance, there is no discussion of why the Office Depot court found that appointing a receiver was appropriate. (Id. at 778.)
In opposition, Defendants argue that WVJP’s motion should be denied because it has not demonstrated that bomelco.com or any other property of Defendants is in danger of being destroyed such that receivership is warranted. (Opposition, 2-4.) Defendants also argue that a receivership is not warranted because bomelco.com has no value. (Id.)
The court agrees with Defendants that no receivership is warranted. WVJP’s only argument in favor of a receivership relies on an erroneous interpretation of Office Depot. However, Office Depot stands for the proposition that a receivership can be set up for a domain name, not that a receivership must be set up for all domain names. Here, WVJP has not made showing that a receivership is required to “carry the judgment into effect” or “to dispose of property according to the judgment,” other than statements to this effect. This is insufficient to warrant granting WVJP’s motion.
Conclusion
WVJP’s motion for appointment of a limited receivership is DENIED. WVJP to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases