This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/26/2019 at 02:56:56 (UTC).

ELLEN J VAN BUSKIRK VS HOLLY GETLIN ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/12/2018 ELLEN J VAN BUSKIRK filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against HOLLY GETLIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB, SAMANTHA P. JESSNER, SAMANTHA JESSNER and YOLANDA OROZCO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9981

  • Filing Date:

    01/12/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

SAMANTHA P. JESSNER

SAMANTHA JESSNER

YOLANDA OROZCO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BUSKIRK ELLEN J. VAN

Respondents and Defendants

KARSIN RONALD

GETLIN HOLLY TRUSTEE OF THE IREN KARSIN

DOES 1 TO 50

KARSIN GORDON

SORENSEN NIELS T.

GETLIN HOLLY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SIMPSON BRIAN J. ESQ.

BRIAN J. SIMPSON APLC

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON

LOEB & LOEB LLP

FEINBERG MINDEL BRANDT & KLEIN LLP

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP

FEINBERG IRWIN BARON

ROWEN ERIC VICTOR

MALINGAGIO PAUL SEBASTIAN

NELSON DAVID CAMERON

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANT GORDON KARSIN'S NOTICE OF JOINDER TO PLAINTIFF ELLEN VAN BUSKIRK'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

3/13/2018: DEFENDANT GORDON KARSIN'S NOTICE OF JOINDER TO PLAINTIFF ELLEN VAN BUSKIRK'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

SUPPLEMENT TO CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY ELLEN J. VAN BUSKIRKK

5/11/2018: SUPPLEMENT TO CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY ELLEN J. VAN BUSKIRKK

ST1PULATION OF ALL PARTIES TO REFER DISPUTE TO ARBITRATION; ORDER

6/1/2018: ST1PULATION OF ALL PARTIES TO REFER DISPUTE TO ARBITRATION; ORDER

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ON STIPULATION TO REFER DISPUTE TO ARBITRATION

6/7/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER ON STIPULATION TO REFER DISPUTE TO ARBITRATION

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

8/21/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

GORDON KARSIN?S OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

8/31/2018: GORDON KARSIN?S OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Minute Order

9/18/2018: Minute Order

Notice

10/18/2018: Notice

Notice

10/29/2018: Notice

Objection

11/16/2018: Objection

Minute Order

12/13/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/21/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Notice of Appearance

1/17/2019: Notice of Appearance

Notice

2/27/2019: Notice

Minute Order

2/28/2019: Minute Order

Notice

3/15/2019: Notice

Substitution of Attorney

4/5/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order

5/14/2018: Minute Order

34 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/05/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Ellen J. Van Buskirk (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Notice (of Court Order re Request to Relate Cases); Filed by Holly Getlin (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Notice (STATUS UPDATE); Filed by Ellen J. Van Buskirk (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2019
  • Notice of Appearance; Filed by Ellen J. Van Buskirk (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 1, Samantha Jessner, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 1, Samantha Jessner, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • Minute Order ((Court Order on Notice of Related Cases Re: Van Buskirk v. Van...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
69 More Docket Entries
  • 02/09/2018
  • RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASE FILED BY RONALD KARSIN

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Notice of Related Cases

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP, ACCOUNTING, AND APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Ellen J. Van Buskirk (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC689981    Hearing Date: March 12, 2021    Dept: 31

MOTION FOR CONFIRMATION OF POST-PROBATE CLAIM REJECTION AND ORDER PERMITTING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT IS GRANTED.Background

On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff Ellen J. Van Buskirk filed the instant action against Defendants Holly Getlin; Trustee of the Irene Karsin Family Trust; Neils T. Sorensen (“Sorensen”); Ronald Karsin; Gordon Karsin; and Does 1 through 50. The Complaint asserts causes of action for:

(1) Dissolution of Partnership;

(2) Accounting; and

(3) Appointment of Receiver.

On March 29, 2018, Defendant Sorensen filed the Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief against Plaintiff.

On June 1, 2018, pursuant to a Stipulation of All Parties to Refer Dispute to Arbitration, the Court ordered the matter to arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration.

On May 4, 2020, pursuant to a Stipulation filed by the parties, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) substituting Special Administrator for the Estate of Niels T. Sorensen in place of Sorensen. The FAC asserts the same causes of action for:

(1) Dissolution of Partnership;

(2) Accounting; and

(3) Appointment of Receiver.

Plaintiff now seeks a confirmation of post-Probate claim rejection and an order permitting amendment of the complaint pursuant to Probate Code section 9370.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 377.41 provides:

On motion, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding against the decedent that does not abate to be continued against the decedent's personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent's successor in interest, except that the court may not permit an action or proceeding to be continued against the personal representative unless proof of compliance with Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000 ) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims is first made.

Probate Code section 9370, titled “Continuation of action pending at time of death; filing and rejection of claim; order for substitution; proof of compliance,” provides:

(a) An action or proceeding pending against the decedent at the time of death may not be continued against the decedent's personal representative unless all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) A claim is first filed as provided in this part.

(2) The claim is rejected in whole or in part.

(3) Within three months after the notice of rejection is given, the plaintiff applies to the court in which the action or proceeding is pending for an order to substitute the personal representative in the action or proceeding. This paragraph applies only if the notice of rejection contains a statement that the plaintiff has three months within which to apply for an order for substitution.

(b) No recovery shall be allowed in the action against property in the decedent's estate unless proof is made of compliance with this section.

Discussion

Pursuant to Probate Code section 9370, Plaintiff seeks a confirmation of post-Probate claim rejection and an order permitting amendment of the complaint on the grounds that it is necessary for the Court to confirm that Plaintiff has complied with Section 9370 to ensure the orderly progress of this case and the related arbitration proceeding.

Plaintiff argues that on November 11, 2018, following the filing of the original Complaint, then-Defendant Sorensen died. (Riera Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff asserts she received notice of the death on May 23, 2019, through counsel. (Riera Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff contends that on October 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed two creditor’s claims with the Estate of Neils T. Sorensen (“Estate of Sorensen”) totaling $2,400,000.00. (Riera Decl., Exh. 1.) Plaintiff argues that she did not receive a response to those claims for nearly one year.

Plaintiff asserts that in the interim, all parties stipulated to amend the Complaint to substitute Todd Lockway as Special Administrator for the Estate of Sorensen for the deceased Defendant Sorensen. (May 4, 2020 Stipulation and Order to Amendment of Complaint.) Plaintiff contends that on May 4, 2020, the Court granted the amendment and deemed the FAC filed and served on the same date. (May 4, 2020 Stipulation and Order to Amendment of Complaint.)

Plaintiff argues that on October 14, 2020, Todd Lockway, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Sorensen, rejected Plaintiff’s two claims. (Riera Decl., Exh. 2.)

Plaintiff asserts that there is no doubt that the three conditions of Probate Code section 9370 set forth in (a)(1) through (a)(3) have been met. Plaintiff contends that two claims were filed, each was rejected in whole, and Plaintiff sought and received an order substituting the personal representative for the deceased pursuant to the Court’s May 4, 2020 Order granting the amendment and deeming the FAC filed and served on the same date.

Plaintiff argues that the third condition that Plaintiff apply for an order substituting the personal representative, however, occurred before the second condition that Plaintiff’s claims be rejected. Plaintiff asserts that she is confident that the satisfaction of the third condition before the second should not affect this action but nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, brings this motion to ensure conformity with Section 9370 so that the action can continue without interruption.

The Court first notes that the instant motion should have been brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.41, as the relief to be provided by Probate Code section 9370 has been mooted as a result of the Court’s May 4, 2020 Order granting the amendment to the Complaint. The Court thus construes the instant motion as a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.41.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the conditions set forth in Section 9370 and that the action may continue against Sorensen’s personal representatives pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.41 and Probate Code section 9370. Here, two claims were filed with the Estate of Sorensen on October 28, 2019, the claims were rejected in whole on October 14, 2020, and Plaintiff has received an order substituting the personal representative for the Estate of Sorensen in the action.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is to give notice.

Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Order in Aid of the Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

The partners of Medjool 179 Farms Associates (“Partnership”) elected Gordon Karsin Managing General Partner of the Partnership, authorized Karsin to sign an engagement agreement with the receiver Kevin Singer (“Receiver”), and gave Karsin signature authority for all Partnership accounts. (Riera Decl. ¶ 2B, 4, Exh. B.) The engagement agreement with the Receiver requires a $10,000 retainer to fund his initial work. (Riera Decl. ¶ 2F, Exh. F.) The Partnership's bank, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Bank”), requires a court order or an in-person meeting of the partners to close existing Partnership accounts and open new accounts with the Receiver and Gordon Karsin as signatories. (Riera Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff asserts that an in-person meeting is impracticable because the partners live in distant locations and because the pandemic makes travel and in-person meetings inadvisable.

On October 20, 2020, Karsin moved the Arbitrator for an order directing the Bank to close its existing accounts in the name of the Partnership and establish one or more new accounts for the Partnership with Gordon Karsin and the Receiver as authorized signatories on the new account(s). (Riera Decl. ¶ 2C, Exh. C.) AAA Commercial Arbitration Rule R-23 gives the Arbitrator broad power to issue any orders necessary to "achieve a fair, efficient and economical resolution of the case ... . " (AAA Commercial Rule R-23.) The Partnership Agreement similarly requires all disputes pertaining to the Partnership to be determined according to the AAA rules.  (Riera Decl. ¶ 2E, Exh. E (First Amended Arbitration Demand, Exhibit “A” (Partnership Agreement, ¶ 22).)

On October 28, 2020, the Arbitrator granted Karsin's motion and requested the Superior Court confirm his Order and issue an order of its own in aid of the Arbitrator's jurisdiction. (Riera Decl. ¶ 2D, Exh. D.) Plaintiff contends that while the Arbitrator has the authority to grant Ms. Van Buskirk and Mr. Karsin's relief, he does not have the authority to issue the court order that the Bank requires.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has established an entitlement to the relief sought. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Order in Aid of the Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall give notice and submit a proposed Order.

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All social distancing protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.