BOSTON PRIVATE & TRUST COMPANY VS. MATTHEW R. ROGERS, ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****7534 Hearing Date: January 12, 2023 Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 1/12/23

Case #****7534

MOTION TO VACATE TRIAL AND RELATED DEADLINES

Motion Filed: 12/14/22

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Silicon Valley Bank

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Matthew R. Rogers; Sarah L. Rogers; Oakgrove Family Park, LLC; Robert Masino; and Richard Masino

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order vacating: (1) the 8/21/23 trial date; (2) the 8/11/23 final status conference date; (3) the 6/6/23 mandatory status conference date; and (4) the 2/28/23 post-mediation status conference date. Plaintiff also requests that the Court specially set a case management conference for some time after the trial in the related case (Oak Grove Mobil Home Park, LLC v. Josh Hodeda, et al., Case No. 19CHCV00958.)

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. A case management conference is set for 9/20/23, which is 30 days from the trial date in Oak Grove Mobil Home Park, LLC v. Josh Hodeda, et al., Case No. 19CHCV00958.

BACKGROUND

On 1/24/17, Boston Private Bank & Trust Co. (“Boston Private”) filed this action for, among other things, appointment of receiver, judicial foreclosure, and breach of guaranty against Defendants Matthew R. Rogers (“M. Rogers”) and Sarah L. Rogers (“S. Rogers”), individually and as trustees of the Rogers Family Trust dated March 25, 2003 (“Rogers Trust”), Oakgrove Park, LLC (“Oakgrove”), and Robert Masino (“Masino”), individually and as trustee of the Masino Family Trust dated June 22, 1977 (“Masino Trust”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

On 12/2/19, Oak Grove Mobil Home Park, LLC v. Josh Hodeda, et al., Case No. 19CHCV00958 (the “Oak Grove Action”) was filed against the Receiver in the instant action. On 11/6/20, the Court ordered this action and the Oak Grove Action related.

At the 10/17/22 Case Management Conference, the Court set the following trial-related dates: (1) non-jury trial on 8/21/23; (2) final status conference on 8/11/23; (3) mandatory status conference on 6/6/23; and (4) post-mediation status conference on 2/28/23. (10/17/22 Minute Order.)

On 12/14/22, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to vacate the trial-related dates set by the Court on 10/17/22. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

The Court is authorized by statute to “maintain control over the pace of litigation” and “actively manage the processing of litigation from commencement to disposition.” (Gov. Code 68607.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks to vacate the trial-related dates pending the outcome of the Oak Grove Action, as “the trial is largely premature and possibly unnecessary because the parties have been waiting upon the receivership portion of this action to be resolved with the approval of the Receiver’s final report and accounting.” (Pl.’s Mot. 5:10–12.)

Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel declares under penalty of perjury that he was unable to call in to the 10/17/22 Case Management Conference through no fault of his own. (Decl. of Gerrick Warrington, 3.) The parties have stipulated to vacate the trial-related dates. (Ex. 1 to Warrington Decl.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to vacate (1) the 8/21/23 trial date; (2) the 8/11/23 final status conference date; (3) the 6/6/23 mandatory status conference date; and (4) the 2/28/23 post-mediation status conference date.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. A case management conference is set for 9/20/23, which is 30 days from the trial date in Oak Grove Mobil Home Park, LLC v. Josh Hodeda, et al., Case No. 19CHCV00958.

Case Number: ****7534 Hearing Date: August 24, 2022 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 8/24/22

Case #****7534

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PLAINTIFF

Motion filed on 3/3/22.

MOVING PARTY: Silicon Valley Bank

RESPONDING PARTY: all other parties

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order substituting Silicon Valley Bank, a California state-chartered financial institution, as successor-in-interest to Plaintiff Boston Private Bank & Trust Co.

RULING: The unopposed motion is granted.

Silicon Valley Bank is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Silicon Valley Bank has failed to bookmark the declaration and exhibits attached to the motion Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

On 1/24/17, Boston Private Bank & Trust Co. (“Boston Private”) filed this action for, among other things, appointment of receiver, judicial foreclosure, and breach of guaranty against Defendants Matthew R. Rogers (“M. Rogers”) and Sarah L. Rogers (“S. Rogers”), individually and as trustees of the Rogers Family Trust dated March 25, 2003 (“Rogers Trust”), Oakgrove Park, LLC (“Oakgrove”), and Robert Masino (“Masino”), individually and as trustee of the Masino Family Trust dated June 22, 1977 (“Masino Trust”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

On 1/26/17, pursuant to Boston Private’s ex parte application, the Court entered an order (“Receivership Order”) appointing Leon J. Owens (“Old Receiver”) as the receiver for Property which was confirmed at a 2/15/17 Order to Show Cause hearing. On 2/23/18, the Court granted Boston Private’s application for an order substituting Josh Hodeda (“Receiver”) for the Old Receiver.

On 1/15/20, Boston Private filed a Motion to Surcharge Receiver which was scheduled for hearing on 2/18/20. Pursuant to stipulations, the hearing on that motion has been continued multiple times and is currently scheduled for hearing on 10/11/22.

On 3/3/22, Silicon Valley Bank filed the instant motion seeking an order substituting Silicon Valley Bank, a California state-chartered financial institution, as successor-in-interest to Plaintiff Boston Private Bank & Trust Co. Specifically, Silicon Valley Bank seeks an order: (1) Designating Silicon Valley Bank to be the plaintiff and real party in interest in this action in place of Boston Private; (2) Changing the caption of this matter to reflect that the plaintiff is “SILICON VALLEY BANK, a California state-chartered commercial bank”; (3) Deeming Frandzel Robins Bloom & Csato, L.C. to be substituted-in as counsel of record for Silicon Valley in this action without the need for any further action; and (4) For such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

The hearing on this motion was originally scheduled for 7/18/22. On that date, the matter was continued to 8/24/22 due to defects in notice as to certain parties. (See 7/18/22 Minute Order).

On 7/19/22, Silicon Valley Bank filed a Notice of Continuance of Motion by Silicon Valley Bank to Substitute Itself As Plaintiff and Successor-In-Interest to Plaintiff Boston Private Bank & Trust Company and a Supplemental Proof of Service for the motion and related request for judicial notice. The foregoing documents and attached proofs of service cure the service defects noted by the Court in its 7/18/22 ruling.

No oppositions/responses to the motion have been filed.

Therefore, the motion is granted. Specifically, (1) Silicon Valley Bank is designated as the plaintiff and real party in interest in this action in place of Boston Private; (2) the caption of the complaint will be changed by interlineation to reflect that the plaintiff is “SILICON VALLEY BANK, a California state-chartered commercial bank”; and (3) Frandzel Robins Bloom & Csato, L.C. is counsel of record for Silicon Valley Bank in this action without the need for any further action.

Case Number: ****7534 Hearing Date: July 18, 2022 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 7/18/22

Case #****7534

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PLAINTIFF

Motion filed on 3/3/22.

MOVING PARTY: Silicon Valley Bank

RESPONDING PARTY: all other parties

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order substituting Silicon Valley Bank, a California state-chartered financial institution, as successor-in-interest to Plaintiff Boston Private Bank & Trust Co.

RULING:

Silicon Valley Bank is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Silicon Valley Bank has failed to bookmark the declaration and exhibits attached to the motion Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

On 1/24/17, Boston Private Bank & Trust Co. (“Boston Private”) filed this action for, among other things, appointment of receiver, judicial foreclosure, and breach of guaranty against Defendants Matthew R. Rogers (“M. Rogers”) and Sarah L. Rogers (“S. Rogers”), individually and as trustees of the Rogers Family Trust dated March 25, 2003 (“Rogers Trust”), Oakgrove Park, LLC (“Oakgrove”), and Robert Masino (“Masino”), individually and as trustee of the Masino Family Trust dated June 22, 1977 (“Masino Trust”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

On 1/26/17, pursuant to Boston Private’s ex parte application, the Court entered an order (“Receivership Order”) appointing Leon J. Owens (“Old Receiver”) as the receiver for Property which was confirmed at a 2/15/17 Order to Show Cause hearing. On 2/23/18, the Court granted Boston Private’s application for an order substituting Josh Hodeda (“Receiver”) for the Old Receiver.

On 1/15/20, Boston Private filed a Motion to Surcharge Receiver which was scheduled for hearing on 2/18/20. Pursuant to stipulations, the hearing on that motion has been continued multiple times and is currently scheduled for hearing on 10/11/22.

On 3/3/22, Silicon Valley Bank filed the instant motion seeking an order substituting Silicon Valley Bank, a California state-chartered financial institution, as successor-in-interest to Plaintiff Boston Private Bank & Trust Co. Specifically, Silicon Valley Bank seeks an order: (1) Designating Silicon Valley Bank to be the plaintiff and real party in interest in this action in place of Boston Private; (2) Changing the caption of this matter to reflect that the plaintiff is “SILICON VALLEY BANK, a California state-chartered commercial bank”; (3) Deeming Frandzel Robins Bloom & Csato, L.C. to be substituted-in as counsel of record for Silicon Valley in this action without the need for any further action; and (4) For such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

The proofs of service attached to the motion are defective as to some of the parties.

The first proof of service attached to the motion indicates that the motion was served by mail on Defendant Oakgrove Family Park, LLC at 7701 Texhoma Avenue, Northridge CA 91325. However, eCourt and the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed on 8/7/20 indicates that the address for Oakgrove Family Park, LLC is Agent for Service Jay A. Rose, 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 523, Woodland Hills, CA 91364.

The second proof of service indicates that counsel for Receiver (Josh Hodeda) was served by email at bw@witkowlaw.com. No evidence of an agreement or court order for email service is provided. See CCP 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(i). Additionally, no email address of record appears for the Receiver’s counsel in eCourt. However, the Court notes that the email address in the proof of service is the same as on the Case Management Statement filed by Hodeda’s counsel on 1/26/21.

Also, the proofs of service do not show that the motion was served on counsel for claimant Oak Grove Mobil Home Park, LLC, Craig Smith of Smith Law Firm.

There are no oppositions/responses to the motion to cure the defects in notice.

If all parties and/or counsel for the parties’ appear at the hearing and waive the defects in notice and state they have no objection to the relief requested, the motion will be granted. Specifically, the Court will order: (1) Silicon Valley Bank will be designated as the plaintiff and real party in interest in this action in place of Boston Private; (2) the caption of the complaint will be changed by interlineation to reflect that the plaintiff is “SILICON VALLEY BANK, a California state-chartered commercial bank”; and (3) Frandzel Robins Bloom & Csato, L.C. is counsel of record for Silicon Valley Bank in this action without the need for any further action.

If not, the hearing will be continued to allow the motion to be properly served on all necessary parties.

Case Number: ****7534    Hearing Date: August 06, 2020    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 8/7/20

Case #****7534

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Motion filed on 2/27/20.

MOVING ATTORNEY: Warren K. Miller

CLIENTS: Defendants Matthew R. Rogers, Sarah L. Rogers & Oakgrove Family Park, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Warren K. Miller as counsel of record for Defendants Matthew R. Rogers, Sarah L. Rogers & Oakgrove Family Park, LLC in this action.

RULING: The motion is granted.