Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 08:43:37 (UTC).

ROBERT KEITH DEHAVEN ET AL VS EARDISH CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 03/07/2016 ROBERT KEITH DEHAVEN filed an Other - Sister State Judgment lawsuit against EARDISH CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0791

  • Filing Date:

    03/07/2016

  • 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 Judge

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

DEHAVEN ROBERT KEITH

DEHAVEN TAMMY

HOPKINS ERIC

Defendant and Respondent

EARDISH CORPORATION

Not Classified By Court

PASTERNAK DAVID J.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

THEODORA ORINGHER PC

PC THEODORA ORINGHER

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service by Mail

12/21/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Declaration

4/12/2019: Declaration

Motion re:

4/12/2019: Motion re:

Declaration

4/12/2019: Declaration

Opposition

5/7/2019: Opposition

Reply

5/9/2019: Reply

Declaration

5/10/2019: Declaration

Motion for Attorney Fees

5/10/2019: Motion for Attorney Fees

Declaration

5/10/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

5/16/2019: Minute Order

Notice

5/30/2019: Notice

Notice of Lodging

7/3/2019: Notice of Lodging

Notice

7/23/2019: Notice

DECLARATION OF AMY E. BURKE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION TO APPOINT A RECEIVER

8/2/2018: DECLARATION OF AMY E. BURKE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION TO APPOINT A RECEIVER

Minute Order

9/6/2016: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF AMY E. BURKE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT A RECEIVER

2/1/2017: DECLARATION OF AMY E. BURKE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT A RECEIVER

DEFENDANT EARDISH CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT A RECEIVER; ETC

3/7/2017: DEFENDANT EARDISH CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT A RECEIVER; ETC

Minute Order

6/12/2017: Minute Order

40 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/23/2019
  • DocketNotice (of entry of order); Filed by Robert Keith Dehaven (Plaintiff); Tammy Dehaven (Plaintiff); Eric Hopkins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketNotice of Lodging (Receiver's Initial Inventory); Filed by David J. Pasternak (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • DocketOrder ([Proposed] Granting Plaintiffs Second Motion For Post-Judgment Attorney Fees); Filed by Robert Keith Dehaven (Plaintiff); Tammy Dehaven (Plaintiff); Eric Hopkins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Filing Receiver's Oath and Posting Receiver's Bond); Filed by David J. Pasternak (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • DocketUndertaking

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • DocketNotice ( of Entry of Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Receiver); Filed by Robert Keith Dehaven (Plaintiff); Tammy Dehaven (Plaintiff); Eric Hopkins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • DocketOath of Receiver; Filed by Robert Keith Dehaven (Plaintiff); Tammy Dehaven (Plaintiff); Eric Hopkins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Non-Opposition Re: Plaintiff's Second Motion for Post-Judgment of Attorney Fees Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 685.04); Filed by Robert Keith Dehaven (Plaintiff); Tammy Dehaven (Plaintiff); Eric Hopkins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
73 More Docket Entries
  • 04/11/2016
  • DocketAMENDED APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2016
  • DocketJUDGMENT BASED ON SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT (CODE CIV. PROC., 1710.25)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2016
  • DocketSister State Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2016
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2016
  • DocketRequest For Entry of Judgment (Enforcement of Judgment); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2016
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2016
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2016
  • DocketApplication for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2016
  • DocketAPPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON SISTER STATE JUDGEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BS160791    Hearing Date: April 5, 2021    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

ROBERT KEITH DEHAVEN, et al.,

vs.

EARDISH CORPORATION.

Case No.: BS160791

Hearing Date: April 5, 2021

Blake Alsbrook’s unopposed motion to appoint him as Successor Receiver to complete the work of the receivership and to confirm the sale of the receivership property to Santiago Mena is granted.

Blake Alsbrook (“Alsbrook”), counsel for Former Receiver David J. Pasternak (“Former Receiver”), moves to be appointed as Successor Receiver in this action to complete the work of the receivership. Alsbrook also moves for the authorization and confirmation of the the sale of the receivership property, specifically Patents Nos. 8,543,452 and 8,775,250 (collectively, the “Patents”) owned by Defendant Judgment Debtor Eardish Corporation (“Defendant”) to Santiago Mena (“Buyer”) for $100,000 on an as-is/where-is basis with no representations or warrantees. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§568, 568.5.)

On May 16, 2019, the Court appointed Former Receiver to take control of Judgment Debtor’s assets, including the Patents, for the purpose of selling in satisfaction of the judgment of Plaintiffs Robert Keith Dehaven, Tammy Dehaven, and Eric Hopkins (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against Judgment Debtor. (Decl. of Alsbrook, Exh. 1 [Appointment Order].) Specifically, the Appointment Order gave Prior Receiver the sole and exclusive power and authority to take possession of the Patents and market, advertise, and subject to the Court’s confirmation, sell the Patents in order to collect and pay the Court’s April 11, 2016 Judgment to Plaintiffs. (Appointment Order ¶4.) The Former Receiver had engaged in initial negotiations with Buyer regarding the Purchase of the Patents; however, on November 21, 2019, the Former Receiver passed away. (Decl. of Alsbrook ¶¶2, 4, Exhs. 1, 2.) The receivership lay dormant for several months as the Former Receiver’s law partner Alsbrook assisted in winding down the partnership. (Decl. of Alsbrook ¶4.) In May 2020, Buyer reached out to Alsbrook and indicated he was ready to make a formal offer to purchase the Patents. (Decl. of Alsbrook ¶5.) Alsbrook corresponded with Plaintiffs’ counsel, who approved of his seeking the Court’s approval to step in as the successor receiver for the limited purpose of completing the contemplated sale of the Patents. (Decl. of Alsbrook ¶6.) Alsbrook declared he thereafter negotiated a “favorable” deal to transfer the Patents to Buyer and now seeks the Court’s appointment as Successor Receiver and approval of the sale. (Decl. of Alsbrook ¶7.) Alsbrook declared the terms of proposed sale of the Patents are as follows: (1) a total $100,000 in exchange for the patents on a where-is/as-is basis, subject to Court confirmation and potential overbidding; (2) on August 11, 2020, Buyer transferred $10,000 to Alsbrook as a deposit which is being held in a client trust account at Alsbrook’s firm; (3) if the Court does not approve the sale, the deposit will be returned to Buyer and if the Court does approve the sale, the deposit will be applied to the sale price and Buyer will be required to deposit an additional 90,000 into escrow within 15 days of the Court’s order or lose its deposit; (4) if the Court approves, Buyer and Alsbrook would thereafter enter into the Assignment; (5) $20,000 of the sale proceeds would be paid to cover the administration costs of Former Receiver, fees and costs of Alsbrook, and fees and costs of intellectual property counsel Steve Sereboff (“Sereboff”); (6) the $80,000 remainder of sale proceeds would pay down the judgment. (Decl. of Alsbrook ¶¶7-10, Exh. 3.)

Alsbrook is entitled to an order appointing him as Successor Receiver in the instant action. The motion is unopposed, and Alsbrook submitted evidence suggesting he is familiar with the case given his association with the Former Receiver and extensive knowledge and work on this matter. (Decl. of Alsbrook ¶11.) Alsbrook submitted evidence Defendant’s counsel also agreed it would be in the best interest of all involved to appoint Alsbrook as Successor Receiver for the purpose of closing the sale since, if no receiver is substituted in the place of the Former Receiver, the current purchase will be lost. (Decl. of Alsbrook ¶11.)

Alsbrook has sufficiently established the Proposed Sale of the Patents to Buyer. Alsbrook declared the $100,000 sale price is a favorable deal. (Decl. of Alsbrook ¶6.) In addition, Defendant’s non-opposition to the instant motion and, accordingly, the proposed sale supports the reasonableness of the sale price.

Based on the foregoing, Alsbrook’s unopposed motion to be appointed Successor Receiver and approve the sale of the Patents is granted.

Dated: April _____, 2021

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where EARDISH CORPORATION is a litigant