Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 07:13:52 (UTC).

GUNNLAUGER PETUR ERLENDSSON VS DAVID GLASSER ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/12/2012 GUNNLAUGER PETUR ERLENDSSON filed an Other - Sister State Judgment lawsuit against DAVID GLASSER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE, AMY D. HOGUE and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9829

  • Filing Date:

    10/12/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Other - Sister State Judgment

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. SEIGLE

AMY D. HOGUE

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ERLENDSSON GUNNLAUGER PETUR

Defendants and Respondents

GLASSER DAVID

GLASSER PHILLIP

PEART MARVIN

HUTKIN DAVID

TRITT-GLASSER MICHELE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SLEZ P.C.

WU DANIEL HARRISON ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

4/17/2019: Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

4/22/2019: Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

Proof of Personal Service

6/19/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order

3/20/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/12/2018: Minute Order

Motion re:

1/25/2019: Motion re:

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/29/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Opposition

1/31/2019: Opposition

Notice

3/11/2019: Notice

Ex Parte Application

3/12/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

3/13/2019: Minute Order

Opposition

4/2/2019: Opposition

JUDGMENT BASED ON SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT

10/26/2012: JUDGMENT BASED ON SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

4/12/2013: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/10/2013: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Minute Order

2/24/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR DAVID GLASSER AND ISSUANCE OF BENCH WARRANT

11/22/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR DAVID GLASSER AND ISSUANCE OF BENCH WARRANT

Minute Order

11/27/2017: Minute Order

68 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/24/2019
  • Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department 44 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Immediate Entry of Judgment) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by David Glasser (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (Karen Algorri, #8319)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examinati...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examinati...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
144 More Docket Entries
  • 04/12/2013
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2013
  • DocketNOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2012
  • DocketSister State Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2012
  • DocketNOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2012
  • DocketApplication for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2012
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2012
  • DocketJUDGMENT BASED ON SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2012
  • DocketAPPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2012
  • DocketAPPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON SISTER STATE JUDGEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2012
  • DocketApplication for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BS139829    Hearing Date: January 26, 2021    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson

OPPOSITION: Defendant and Judgment Debtor David Glasser

In 2012 a judgment was entered in Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson’s (“Erlendsson”) favor in New York and a sister state judgment was entered in California on October 26, 2012.

On September 19, 2017, Erlendsson obtained a renewed judgment against defendants for $1,086,681.39. In 2018, the parties entered into the Settlement and Release Agreement. The Agreement called for payment of $1,250,000 but defendants defaulted under the Agreement and have only paid $500,000.

Previously, the Court continued the December 16 hearing on the instant motion to allow additional notice time for Erlendsson’s service by mail.

Erlendsson moves to charge, foreclose, and sell Defendant/Judgment Debtor David Glasser’s (“Glasser”) interest in 101 Studios, LLC (“101 Studios”), to satisfy the judgment.

Standard: Code of Civil Procedure section 708.310 states: “If a money judgment is rendered against a partner or member but not against the partnership or limited liability company, the judgment debtor’s interest in the partnership or limited liability company may be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment by an order charging the judgment debtor’s interest pursuant to Section 15907.3, 16504, or 17705.03 of the Corporations Code.”

“On application by a judgment creditor of a member or transferee, a court may enter a charging order against the transferable interest of the judgment debtor for the unsatisfied amount of the judgment. A charging order constitutes a lien on a judgment debtor's transferable interest and requires the limited liability company to pay over to the person to which the charging order was issued any distribution that would otherwise be paid to the judgment debtor.” (Corp. Code § 17705.03(a).)

“To the extent necessary to effectuate the collection of distributions pursuant to a charging order in effect under subdivision (a), the court may do any of the following:

(2) Make all other orders necessary to give effect to the charging order.

(3) Upon a showing that distributions under a charging order will not pay the judgment debt within a reasonable time, foreclose the lien and order the sale of the transferable interest. The purchaser at the foreclosure sale obtains only the transferable interest, does not thereby become a member, and is subject to Section 17705.02.” (Id. at subd. (b).)

Analysis: GRANTED

The Court finds that Erlendsson satisfied his notice obligation. On December 8, 2020, Erlendsson served by mail 101 Studios’ agent for service of process. The address used for service was that found on the California Secretary of State’s website for agent for service of process. However, the motion was sent back to Erlendsson’s counsel bearing a stamp of “Return to Sender. Not at this Address.” On December 30, 2020, Erlendsson attempted personal service but it appears that 101 Studios has moved out of the listed address.

Glasser previously argued that Erlendsson’s evidence did not currently demonstrate that distributions under a charging order would not pay the judgment debt within a reasonable time. Glasser stated that this was because Erlendsson’s evidence was from June 2019 debtor examinations, conducted over a year and a half ago. The Court finds that Erlendsson’s evidence met his burden and Glasser failed to present any evidence that distribution under a charging order would pay the debt within a reasonable time.

Conclusion: Judgment Creditor Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson’s Motion for a Charging Order is GRANTED.

Case Number: BS139829    Hearing Date: December 16, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson

OPPOSITION: Defendant and Judgment Debtor David Glasser

In 2012 a judgment was entered in Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson’s (“Erlendsson”) favor in New York and a sister state judgment was entered in California on October 26, 2012.

On September 19, 2017, Erlendsson obtained a renewed judgment against defendants for $1,086,681.39. In 2018, the parties entered into the Settlement and Release Agreement. The Agreement called for payment of $1,250,000 but defendants defaulted under the Agreement and have only paid $500,000.

Erlendsson moves to charge, foreclose, and sell Defendant/Judgment Debtor David Glasser’s (“Glasser”) interest in 101 Studios, LLC (“101 Studios”), to satisfy the judgment.

Standard: Code of Civil Procedure section 708.310 states: “If a money judgment is rendered against a partner or member but not against the partnership or limited liability company, the judgment debtor’s interest in the partnership or limited liability company may be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment by an order charging the judgment debtor’s interest pursuant to Section 15907.3, 16504, or 17705.03 of the Corporations Code.”

“On application by a judgment creditor of a member or transferee, a court may enter a charging order against the transferable interest of the judgment debtor for the unsatisfied amount of the judgment. A charging order constitutes a lien on a judgment debtor's transferable interest and requires the limited liability company to pay over to the person to which the charging order was issued any distribution that would otherwise be paid to the judgment debtor.” (Corp. Code § 17705.03(a).)

“To the extent necessary to effectuate the collection of distributions pursuant to a charging order in effect under subdivision (a), the court may do any of the following:

(2) Make all other orders necessary to give effect to the charging order.

(3) Upon a showing that distributions under a charging order will not pay the judgment debt within a reasonable time, foreclose the lien and order the sale of the transferable interest. The purchaser at the foreclosure sale obtains only the transferable interest, does not thereby become a member, and is subject to Section 17705.02.” (Id. at subd. (b).)

Analysis: Glasser argues that Erlendsson failed to properly serve 101 Studios with the motion.

Erlendsson served 101 Studios via email. (Reply, pdf pp. 61-62.) To “obtain a lien on a judgment debtor's interest in an LLC before the court issues a charging order, the judgment creditor must serve a notice of motion for charging order on (1) the debtor and (2) the LLC or all of its members. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 708.320(a); emphasis added.)

Glasser states that there is no authority indicating that service via email is proper. (See Textron Fin. Corp. v. Gallegos, No. 15CV1678-LAB (DHB), 2015 WL 11658718, at *1, [finding that personal service is not required to satisfy section 708.320(a) and that service by mail is sufficient.].)

The Court finds that Erlendsson’s service via email was not proper and that he should have served 101 Studios via mail. 101 Studios was not a party to the action and did not consent to electronic service. (CCP § 1010.6.) Erlendsson seems to acknowledge this as he mail served 101 Studios’ agent for service of process on December 8, 2020. However, all moving papers must be served at least 16 court days before the hearing. (CCP § 1005(b).)

Erlendsson’s December 8 service is untimely for this December 16 hearing.

Conclusion: Judgment Creditor Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Case Number: BS139829    Hearing Date: November 04, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson

OPPOSITION: 1) Defendant David Glasser, 2) Defendant Phillip Glasser

In May 2018, Plaintiff Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson entered into a Settlement Agreement with Defendants David Glasser (“David”), Phillip Glasser (“Phillip”), and Marvin Peart (collectively, “Defendants”) to settle a long running dispute over monies owed to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff requests this Court to issue an Order directing Defendants David Glasser, Phillip Glasser, and Marvin Peart to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for their conscious disregard of the Court's March 12, 2020, Amended Order Granting Erlendsson’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in the Amount of $112,322.94, within 10 days of the Order.

Defendants David Glasser and Phillip Glasser each filed an opposition. No opposition was received from defendant Marvin Peart.

Timeliness: Plaintiff objects to David’s late opposition but the Court will consider the opposition in making its ruling.

Objections: David’s four objections to the declaration of Daniel H. Wu, Plaintiff’s counsel, are OVERRULED.

Standard: Cal Code of Civ. Proc. §1209 allows courts to issue contempt sanctions for disobedience of lawful court orders. Under Cal Code of Civ. Proc. §1211, when contempt is committed outside the presence of the court, an affidavit or declaration must be presented of the facts constituting contempt. The elements of contempt via disobedience of a court order are: (1) rendition of a valid order, (2) respondent’s knowledge of the order, (3) respondent’s ability to comply with the order; and (4) respondent’s willful disobedience of the order. Conn v. Superior Court (1987) 167 Cal.App.3d 774, 784.

Analysis:

1) David Glasser: DENIED

David argues that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the second through fourth elements of contempt. Plaintiff has failed to submit a proof of service to show that the Order was served on him. Instead, Plaintiff submitted a proof of service showing that the Proposed Order was served. David also argues that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate his financial ability to comply with the Order.

In Plaintiff’s reply, counsel Daniel H. Wu (“Wu”) states that he sent the Order via email to the Defendants at the emails he had previously used to send/receive emails from them. (Reply Decl. Wu, Ex. B.) Wu states that he communicated with David, who told him that he would not and could not pay the Order. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

On October 8, 2020, Wu sent a follow-up email about the Order to Defendants. (Id. at Ex. C.)

The Court will deny the motion to set an order to show cause. The Court notes that Wu’s initial declaration is quite brief and lacks details. (Decl. Wu.) All of the exhibits attached to Wu’s Reply Declarations should have been in the moving papers. The Court does find that David had notice of the Order and accepts Wu’s representation that he communicated with him and served the Order on him. The problem is with David’s ability to pay. Wu presents evidence that David has a $950,000 salary and owns three real estate properties. (Id. at Exs. F and G.) However, the same evidence demonstrates that David’s income is being garnished by the Franchise Tax Board and that the IRS is trying to liquidate all his properties. This is hardly a picture of robust financial health. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that David had the ability to pay the Order.

2) Phillip Glasser: DENIED

Phillip argues that he was not served the order, that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate his ability to pay, and that Fees and Costs are only enforceable by adding them to the Judgment.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Phillip’s failure to comply with the Order was willful. The only argument for Phillip’s ability to pay is that since he “executed the Agreement, along with co-Defendants David Glasser and Marvin Peart, it establishes, at a minimum, that because [Phillip] was able to and agreed to pay Plaintiff $1,250,000.00, it logically follows that [Phillip] likely possesses the financial ability to pay the $112,322.94.” The problem with this argument is that the Agreement was executed in May 2018, which is two years and sixth months ago. At most this demonstrates that in 2018, Phillip had the financial ability to pay but it does not say anything about his current ability to pay the Order.

3) Marvin Peart: DENIED

The Court notes that Peart has not filed an opposition. However, the only evidence of Peart’s ability to pay is that his LinkedIn webpage states that he is the “Founding Partner/Chief Business Development Officer at 101 Studios and is also the Chief Executive Officer of Brookdale Studios. Plaintiff asserts that 101 Studios is working on some films and projects. This is insufficient evidence of Peart’s ability to pay the Order.

Conclusion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Set an Order to Show Cause Regarding Contempt is DENIED.