This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/12/2019 at 01:33:58 (UTC).

RENATO CORZO ET AL VS ALEX BELLEHUMEUR ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/05/2016 RENATO CORZO filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ALEX BELLEHUMEUR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is BARBARA M. SCHEPER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6124

  • Filing Date:

    10/05/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

BARBARA M. SCHEPER

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

CORZO RENATO

CORBELL

Defendants and Respondents

LINDA A. DYER INCORPORATED

COL-BELLE

BELLEHUMEUR LINDA

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION

BELLEHUMUER ALEX AND LINDA AS TRUSTEES

STATE-WIDE DEVELOPERS INC.

DOES 1 THROUGH 30

BELLEHUMEUR ALEX

ENTWISTLE LAURA; DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

CATANZARITE KENNETH J. ESQ.

CATANZARITE KENNETH JOSEPH ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

SEVERSON & WERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORP SF

KINLEY MATTHEW L. ESQ.

SEVERSON & WERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORP LA

KUBOTA ERIN S.

ITO RYAN M

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

12/27/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/8/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/30/2019: Minute Order

NOTICE OF DEPOSITING JURY FEES

10/5/2016: NOTICE OF DEPOSITING JURY FEES

Unknown

1/25/2017: Unknown

PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO BELLEHUMEUR DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

3/23/2017: PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO BELLEHUMEUR DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF RULING

5/5/2017: NOTICE OF RULING

DECLARATION OF MATTHEW L. KINLEY RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/9/2017: DECLARATION OF MATTHEW L. KINLEY RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

6/23/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Minute Order

7/14/2017: Minute Order

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ALEX BELLEHUMEUR IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO APPOINT A RECEIVER

8/11/2017: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ALEX BELLEHUMEUR IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO APPOINT A RECEIVER

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MATTHEW L. KINLEY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND

8/11/2017: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MATTHEW L. KINLEY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND

Minute Order

6/19/2018: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF MATTHEW L. KINLEY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

7/19/2018: DECLARATION OF MATTHEW L. KINLEY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

NOTICE OF FILING ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT

7/31/2018: NOTICE OF FILING ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT

DEFENDANT LAURA ENTWISTLE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3595.47 AGAINST PLAINTIFF RENATO CORZO AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

8/3/2018: DEFENDANT LAURA ENTWISTLE'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3595.47 AGAINST PLAINTIFF RENATO CORZO AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

NOTICE OF LIEN (ATTACHMENT?ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

8/16/2018: NOTICE OF LIEN (ATTACHMENT?ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE AND NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE ADDRESS

9/27/2018: CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE AND NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE ADDRESS

181 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/01/2019
  • Notice (OF CONTINUED STATUS CONFERENCE); Filed by Renato Corzo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Status Conference (/Progress Report) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference /Progress Report)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Status Report; Filed by Renato Corzo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Set Ex Parte for Oral Argument) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Opposition (to exparte)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Set Ex Parte f...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Ex parte); Filed by Alex Bellehumeur (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Renato Corzo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (re Referee) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
383 More Docket Entries
  • 11/10/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2016
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Renato Corzo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2016
  • AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2016
  • NOTICE OF DEPOSITING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FRAUD; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2016
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Renato Corzo (Plaintiff); Corbell (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2016
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2016
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC636124    Hearing Date: August 19, 2020    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Corzo, et. al. vs. Bellehumeur, et. al., Case No. BC636124

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Receiver

Plaintiff Corzo moves for the appointment of a receiver to represent the interests of the Corbell Partnership, a nominal defendant in this action. The motion is denied for the reasons stated in the opposition.

Code of Civil Procedure section 564 authorizes the court to appoint a receiver in certain circumstances. Plaintiff moves on three of the statutory grounds: (1) In an action . . . between partners or others jointly owning or interested in any property or fund, on the application of the plaintiff, or of any party whose right to or interest in the property or fund, or the proceeds thereof, is probable, and where it is shown that the property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured; . . . (6) Where a corporation is insolvent, or in imminent danger of insolvency, or has forfeited its corporate rights; . . .(9) In all other cases where necessary to preserve the property or rights of any party.

“[A]ppointment of a receiver is a drastic remedy to be employed only in exceptional circumstances.” (City and County of San Francisco v. Daley (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 734, 744.) “[A] receiver should not be appointed where no actual or threatened cessation or diminution of business operations is shown.” (Golden State Glass Corp. v. Superior court of Los Angeles County (1939) 13 Cal.2d 384, 394.) “The pertinent question on a motion for a receivership is whether the facts alleged in a petitioner’s complaint and affidavits establish at least a probability of a joint or common interest in an enterprise which is in danger of loss, removal, or material injury, as required by the statute.” (Maggiora v. Palo Alto Inn, Inc. (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 706, 712.) “[A]ppointment of a receiver rests in a large measure in the sound discretion of the court. However, such power is not entirely uncontrolled and must be exercised with due regard to the facts presented in each particular case.” (Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 869, 873 (Alhambra-Shumway Mines).)

Here, Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing the need for a receiver at this late stage of the proceedings. It is undisputed that the partnership is to be dissolved and the only asset remaining is a bank account. All that remains is for the Court to order the distribution of the funds left in that account.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where STATE-WIDE DEVELOPERS INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where Bank of America is a litigant