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.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
BARBARA M. SCHEPER
LINDA A. DYER INCORPORATED
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
BELLEHUMUER ALEX AND LINDA AS TRUSTEES
STATE-WIDE DEVELOPERS INC.
DOES 1 THROUGH 30
ENTWISTLE LAURA; DOE 1
CATANZARITE KENNETH J. ESQ.
CATANZARITE KENNETH JOSEPH ESQ.
SEVERSON & WERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORP SF
KINLEY MATTHEW L. ESQ.
SEVERSON & WERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORP LA
KUBOTA ERIN S.
ITO RYAN M
12/27/2018: Minute Order
3/8/2019: Minute Order
4/30/2019: Minute Order
10/5/2016: NOTICE OF DEPOSITING JURY FEES
3/23/2017: PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO BELLEHUMEUR DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
5/5/2017: NOTICE OF RULING
6/9/2017: DECLARATION OF MATTHEW L. KINLEY RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
6/23/2017: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
7/14/2017: Minute Order
8/11/2017: 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 MATTHEW L. KINLEY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND
6/19/2018: Minute Order
7/19/2018: DECLARATION OF MATTHEW L. KINLEY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
7/31/2018: NOTICE OF FILING ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT
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
8/16/2018: NOTICE OF LIEN (ATTACHMENT?ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)
9/27/2018: CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE AND NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE ADDRESS
Notice (OF CONTINUED STATUS CONFERENCE); Filed by Renato Corzo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Status Conference (/Progress Report) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Status Conference /Progress Report)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Status Report; Filed by Renato Corzo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Set Ex Parte for Oral Argument) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Opposition (to exparte)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Set Ex Parte f...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (Ex parte); Filed by Alex Bellehumeur (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Renato Corzo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (re Referee) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Renato Corzo (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF DEPOSITING JURY FEESRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FRAUD; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Related Case; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Renato Corzo (Plaintiff); Corbell (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF RELATED CASERead MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC636124 Hearing Date: August 19, 2020 Dept: 30
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases