This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/04/2019 at 02:03:07 (UTC).

MARCO MACIAS VS. QUICKFIX INVESTMENTS, LLC

Case Summary

On 07/10/2017 MARCO MACIAS filed a Property - Foreclosure lawsuit against QUICKFIX INVESTMENTS, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6854

  • Filing Date:

    07/10/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Foreclosure

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RALPH C. HOFER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MACIAS MARCO

Defendants

QUICKFIX INVESTMENTS LLC.

WILSON-HAYDEN BLAKE

SBS TRUST DEED NETOWORK A CA. CORP.

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF GILBERT SAUCEDO

COHEN EARLE H.

Defendant Attorneys

MARK D. ESTLE

BRUCE B. PALLER

PALLER BRUCE B.

PALLER BRUCE BARCLAY

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION BLAKE WILSON-HAYDEN

10/2/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION BLAKE WILSON-HAYDEN

Request for Judicial Notice

10/2/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER RELEASE $45,000 UNDERTAKING

10/2/2019: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER RELEASE $45,000 UNDERTAKING

Order - ORDER AFTER EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTURAL ARBITRATION AWARD AND DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

2/13/2019: Order - ORDER AFTER EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTURAL ARBITRATION AWARD AND DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER TO EXONERATE BOND FILED ON BEHALF O...)

7/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER TO EXONERATE BOND FILED ON BEHALF O...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXONERATE BOND

6/18/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXONERATE BOND

Declaration - DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT BLAKE WILSON-HAYDEN

6/18/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT BLAKE WILSON-HAYDEN

Motion re: - MOTION RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXONERATE BOND

6/3/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXONERATE BOND

Substitution of Attorney

1/25/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Conform Contractual Arbitr...)

2/13/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Conform Contractual Arbitr...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Post-Arbitration Status Conference)

2/13/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Post-Arbitration Status Conference)

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application To Confirm Arbitration Award

2/13/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application To Confirm Arbitration Award

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

7/10/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

Notice of Case Management Conference

7/10/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Notice - Notice of Order to Show Cause Re Failure to Comply with Trial Court Delay Reduction Act

7/10/2017: Notice - Notice of Order to Show Cause Re Failure to Comply with Trial Court Delay Reduction Act

Summons

7/10/2017: Summons

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

7/10/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/10/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

42 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/03/2020
  • Hearing01/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion for Order Release of Plaintiff's $45,000 Undertaking

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketMotion for Order (Release $45,000 Undertaking); Filed by QUICKFIX INVESTMENTS, LLC. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Blake Wilson-Hayden); Filed by QUICKFIX INVESTMENTS, LLC. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by QUICKFIX INVESTMENTS, LLC. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion - Other (To Exonerate Bond filed on behalf of Plaintiff Marco Macias) - Held - Motion Denied

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/05/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other To Exonerate Bond filed on behalf o...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion - Other (Motion to Release Civil Bond) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • DocketOpposition (to Motion to Exonerate Bond); Filed by QUICKFIX INVESTMENTS, LLC. (Defendant); BLAKE WILSON-HAYDEN (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (of Defendant Blake Wilson-Hayden); Filed by QUICKFIX INVESTMENTS, LLC. (Defendant); BLAKE WILSON-HAYDEN (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketMotion re: (Notice of Motion and Motion to Exonerate Bond); Filed by MARCO MACIAS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
83 More Docket Entries
  • 07/12/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-07-12 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/12/2017
  • DocketExParte Application; Filed by MARCO MACIAS (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketNotice of Order to Show Cause Re Failure to Comply with Trial Court Delay Reduction Act

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****6854 Hearing Date: July 9, 2021 Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar: 14
Date: 7/9/2021
Case No: ****6854
Case Name: Macias v. Quickfix Investments, LLC, et al.
MOTION FOR RELEASE OF UNDERTAKING
Moving Party: Defendants Quickfix Investments, LLC and Blake Wilson-Hayden
Responding Party: Plaintiff Marco Macias (No Opposition)
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order to release plaintiff’s $45,000 undertaking
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Plaintiff Marco Macias alleges that he is the co-owner with non-party Juan Cuevas and occupies as his principal dwelling real property in Monterey Park. Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2014 he was approached by a friend who needed a loan, and as a favor plaintiff agreed to support a loan to his friend if the friend could locate a lender that would make a loan to be secured by a third deed of trust recorded against plaintiff’s property. The friend located a lender, defendant Quickfix Investments, LLC, and negotiated the terms of a “hard money” loan for $97,014 payable within six months at an annual interest rate of 15%. Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff was directed to go to an office in Los Angeles to execute the loan documents, which he did, but was not provided with copies of the documents he signed.
Plaintiff alleges that when foreclosure proceedings were commenced in 2017, he obtained from the escrow company a copy of the documents he signed and learned that the note provided for various increases in the interest rate, fees and penalties, and other charges. Plaintiff alleges that defendant failed to comply with Truth in Lending Act, and the California High Cost Law, entitling plaintiff to rescind the transaction.
On July 12, 2017, the court heard an ex parte application filed on behalf of plaintiff for a TRO and OSC re Preliminary Injunction to enjoin a trustee’s sale then scheduled for July 17, 2017. The application was granted, the TRO was issued, and the matter set for an OSC re preliminary injunction.
On August 11, 2017, the court granted the application for preliminary injunction, and ordered plaintiff to post a bond in the sum of $45,000. The bond was posted on August 25, 2017.
On February 2, 2018, the court heard a motion brought by defendants Quickfix Investments, LLC and Blake Wilson-Hayden to compel arbitration. The unopposed motion was granted, and the matter stayed as to all parties, including a non-arbitrating party, SBS Trust Deed Network, pending resolution of the arbitration.
On February 13, 2019, the court heard an ex parte application to confirm the contractual arbitration award and terminate the preliminary injunction, which was granted.
On July 5, 2019, the court heard a motion brought by plaintiff Macias to exonerate the bond. The motion was denied, the court ruling as follows:
“Motion to Exonerate Bond is DENIED. There has been no final judgment entered in this matter. Also, it is not clear what effect plaintiff’s pending bankruptcy has on plaintiff’s standing to seek relief in this matter, and it appears that defendants may have a claim to the bond funds, which may be pursued post-judgment.”
On February 21, 2020, the court heard a Motion for Release of Undertaking filed by moving defendants Quickfix Investments, LLC and Blake Wilson-Hayden, seeking the release of the $45,000 undertaking to defendants.
The court published its tentative ruling, which was to deny the motion without prejudice as premature as there had been no final judgment entered in the matter. Counsel for defendant informed the court at the hearing that plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy. The court ordered that the tentative ruling would become the order of the court.
The file shows that on August 12, 2020, Judgment was entered in this matter in favor of defendants Quickfix Investments, LLC and Blake Wilson-Hayden and against plaintiff Marco Macias. The Judgment also states that it is ordered, adjudged and decreed:
“that Defendants Quickfix Investments, LLC and Blake Wilson-Hayden are the prevailing parties and are entitled to statutory costs of suit upon submission of a cost bill; that Defendants Quickfix Investments, LLC and Blake Wilson-Hayden are deemed to have been wrongfully enjoined by preliminary injunction order of August 11, 2017; and that the Preliminary Injunction Order of August 11, 2017 is hereby terminated and dissolved as of February 13, 2019.”
ANALYSIS:
Defendants Quickfix Investments and Wilson-Hayden bring this motion to release plaintiff’s $45,000 undertaking, on the ground judgment has been entered against plaintiff in favor of defendants, and that defendants were damaged by the wrongfully imposed injunction.
Defendants seek relief under CCP ; 996.440, which provides, in pertinent part:
“(a) If a bond is given in an action or proceeding, the liability on the bond may be enforced on motion made in the court without the necessity of an independent action.
(b) The motion shall not be made until after entry of the final judgment in the action or proceeding in which the bond is given and the time for appeal has expired or, if an appeal is taken, until the appeal is finally determined. The motion shall not be made or notice of motion served more than one year after the later of the preceding dates.”
The motion is now appropriately brought following the entry of judgment on August 12, 2020. [RFJN, Ex. B]. The moving papers also submit an Order and Notice of Dismissal in the Bankruptcy proceeding, indicating that debtor’s bankruptcy case was dismissed, on request of the debtor, on September 10, 2020. [RFJN, Ex. A]. The previous motion had also established that on September 11, 2019, the moving defendants had been granted by the bankruptcy court relief from the automatic stay.
CCP section 996.440 further provides:
(c) Notice of motion shall be served on the principal and sureties at least 30 days before the time set for hearing of the motion. The notice shall state the amount of the claim and shall be supported by affidavits setting forth the facts on which the claim is based. The notice and affidavits shall be served in accordance with any procedure authorized by Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010).
(d) Judgment shall be entered against the principal and sureties in accordance with the motion unless the principal or sureties serve and file affidavits in opposition to the motion showing such facts as may be deemed by the judge hearing the motion sufficient to present a triable issue of fact. If such a showing is made, the issues to be tried shall be specified by the court. Trial shall be by the court and shall be set for the earliest date convenient to the court, allowing sufficient time for such discovery proceedings as may be requested.”
Under CCP section 529(a), governing injunction bonds, such as that entered here:
“On granting an injunction, the court or judge must require an undertaking on the part of the applicant to the effect that the applicant will pay to the party enjoined any damages, not exceeding the amount to be specified, the party may sustain by reason of the injunction, if the court finally decides that the applicant was not entitled to the injunction...”
It is held that liability on an injunction bond “depends simply on proof that the injunction was issued, that the defendant suffered damage thereby, and that the court has decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction.” Russell v. Union Pacific Ins. Co. (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 78, 87.
Here, as noted above, a preliminary injunction was issued, and the moving papers have submitted the Judgment, pursuant to which it was adjudicated that, “Defendants Quickfix Investments, LLC and Blake Wilson-Hayden are deemed to have been wrongfully enjoined by preliminary injunction order of August 11, 2017.” [RFJN, Ex. B]. The court has accordingly decided that plaintiff was not entitled to the subject injunction.
The court may accordingly proceed to determine the amount of the undertaking to which defendants are entitled.
Under the statutory scheme of the Bond and Undertaking Law, the recovery of defendants for any wrongful injunction is limited to the amount of the bond. See Abba Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1, 12-14.
As noted above, under CCP ; 529, if the court grants the injunction it “must require an undertaking on the part of the applicant to the effect that the applicant will pay to the party enjoined any damages, not exceeding the amount to be specified, the party may sustain by reason of the injunction, if the court finally decides that the applicant was not entitled to the injunction.”
The bond is intended to secure all reasonably foreseeable damages that may be proximately caused by issuance of the injunction, including costs of defense in the event of trial. Abba, at 15-16.
Defendants argue that such damages would include in this case loss of interest under the underlying promissory note, as well as delinquency charges on the note, in reliance on Both parties rely on Surety Savings & Loan Association v. National Automobile & Cas. Ins. Co. (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 752, in which the court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s order and judgment for plaintiff for the full amount of an injunction bond in connection with a preliminary injunction restraining a foreclosure sale instituted by plaintiff on a construction loan. The court of appeal set forth the following standard:
“It is well settled the damage recoverable under an injunction bond, such as the bond at bench, is for all loss proximately resulting from the injunction; the factors to be considered in determining the loss depend upon the circumstances of the case; the measure of damage will vary with those circumstances; arbitrary rules do not govern; equitable principles are applied; and the allowance, although often difficult to measure accurately, should furnish just and reasonable compensation for the loss sustained. (Rice v. Cook, 92 Cal. 144, 148-150 [28 P. 219]; Russell v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 214 Cal.App.2d 78, 87 [29 Cal.Rptr. 346]; Robinson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 5 Cal.App.2d 241, 245 [42 P.2d 653]; Moore v. Maryland Cas. Co., 100 Cal.App. 658, 663 [280 P. 1008].)”
Surety Savings, at 757.
The court of appeal then found that while the court’s order did not sufficiently support an award under the bond for damages as a result in an alleged decline in the fair market value of the real property subject to the deed of trust, the trial court had properly determined that recoverable expenses included attorneys’ fees incurred, expenses incurred for guard services to protect the security, and the interest claimed in that case. As to the interest, the court of appeal concluded:
“Under the rules heretofore stated, where a sale under a deed of trust wrongfully is enjoined compensation for the delay caused by the injunction may include an award to the beneficiary of interest on the amount which would have been received from the enjoined sale, provided the amount of the award, taking into consideration the amount received from the subsequent sale, may not exceed the actual loss sustained.”
Surety Savings, at 759.
The court of appeal then found that since these items together exceeded the amount of the bond, there was no need for the court of appeal to consider the other items of damages awarded by the trial court. Surety Savings, at 760.
Defendants here submit evidence that they have incurred in excess of $45,000 in attorney’s fees and arbitration costs, and submit invoices supporting that claim. See Wilson-Hayden Declaration, paras. 41- 49; Exs. A-E]. Defendant Wilson-Hayden also states in the declaration that Quickfix has lost or incurred over $193,000 in deferred interest payments, default interest payments, late fees, extension fees, and forced property insurance expenses. [Wilson-Hayden Decl., para. 40]. This is a sufficient showing that the damages incurred exceed the available undertaking.
Plaintiff has failed to file opposition. As set forth above, under CCP section 996.440 (d), “Judgment shall be entered against the principal and sureties in accordance with the motion unless the principal or sureties serve and file affidavits in opposition to the motion showing such facts as may be deemed by the judge hearing the motion sufficient to present a triable issue of fact.”
No affidavits have been submitted in opposition to the motion, so no triable issue of fact appears. Judgment is entered in accordance with the motion.
RULING:
[No Opposition].
UNOPPOSED Motion for Release of Plaintiff’s $45,000 Undertaking is GRANTED.
The Court finds that an injunction was issued in this matter, that defendants suffered damage thereby, and that this Court has issued judgment based on a determination that plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction, but that the injunction was wrongfully issued, and that the time to appeal that judgment has expired.
The Court finds that notice of motion has been appropriately filed and served, and that the motion is supported by an affidavit setting forth the facts on which the claim is based. The Court further finds plaintiff has not filed any affidavits in opposition to the motion, and has failed to show facts sufficient to present a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, judgment is entered against the undertaking in the full sum of $45,000, as claimed in the motion, as the damages established by defendants exceed the sum of the undertaking.
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO ADHERE TO HEALTH GUIDANCE THAT DICTATES SAFETY MEASURES, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES
Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers audio and video appearance at a cost of $15.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing, regardless of vaccination status, must wear a face mask over both the nose and mouth. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.
'


Case Number: ****6854    Hearing Date: February 21, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 16

Date: 2/21/20

Case No: EC 066854

Case Name: Macias v. Quickfix Investments, LLC, et al.

MOTION FOR RELEASE OF UNDERTAKING

Moving Party: Defendants Quickfix Investments, LLC and Blake Wilson-Hayden

Responding Party: Plaintiff Marco Macias (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Order to release plaintiff’s $45,000 undertaking

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiff Marco Macias alleges that he is the co-owner with non-party Juan Cuevas and occupies as his principal dwelling real property in Monterey Park. Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2014 he was approached by a friend who needed a loan, and as a favor plaintiff agreed to support a loan to his friend if the friend could locate a lender that would make a loan to be secured by a third deed of trust recorded against plaintiff’s property. The friend located a lender, defendant Quickfix Investments, LLC, and negotiated the terms of a “hard money” loan for $97,014 payable within six months at an annual interest rate of 15%. Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff was directed to go to an office in Los Angeles to execute the loan documents, which he did, but was not provided with copies of the documents he signed.

Plaintiff alleges that when foreclosure proceedings were commenced in 2017, he obtained from the escrow company a copy of the documents he signed and learned that the note provided for various increases in the interest rate, fees and penalties, and other charges. Plaintiff alleges that defendant failed to comply with Truth in Lending Act, and the California High Cost Law, entitling plaintiff to rescind the transaction.

On July 12, 2017, the court heard an ex parte application filed on behalf of plaintiff for a TRO and OSC re Preliminary Injunction to enjoin a trustee’s sale then scheduled for July 17, 2017. The application was granted, the TRO was issued, and the matter set for an OSC re preliminary injunction.

On August 11, 2017, the court granted the application for preliminary injunction, and ordered plaintiff to post a bond in the sum of $45,000. The bond was posted on August 25, 2017.

On February 2, 2018, the court heard a motion brought by defendants Quickfix Investments, LLC and Blake Wilson-Hayden to compel arbitration. The unopposed motion was granted, and the matter stayed as to all parties, including a non-arbitrating party, SBS Trust Deed Network, pending resolution of the arbitration.

On February 13, 2019, the court heard an ex parte application to confirm the contractual arbitration award and terminate the preliminary injunction, which was granted.

On July 5, 2019, the court heard a motion brought by plaintiff Macias to exonerate the bond. The motion was denied, the court ruling as follows:

“Motion to Exonerate Bond is DENIED. There has been no final judgment entered in this matter. Also, it is not clear what effect plaintiff’s pending bankruptcy has on plaintiff’s standing to seek relief in this matter, and it appears that defendants may have a claim to the bond funds, which may be pursued post-judgment.”

ANALYSIS:

Defendants Quickfix Investments and Wilson-Hayden bring this motion to release plaintiff’s $45,000 undertaking, on the ground judgment has been entered against plaintiff in favor of defendants, and that defendants were damaged by the wrongfully imposed injunction.

The problem remains with respect to this motion, as was a problem with plaintiff’s motion, that there has not yet been a judgment entered in this matter.

Defendants seek relief under CCP ; 996.440, which provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) If a bond is given in an action or proceeding, the liability on the bond may be enforced on motion made in the court without the necessity of an independent action.

(b) The motion shall not be made until after entry of the final judgment in the action or proceeding in which the bond is given and the time for appeal has expired or, if an appeal is taken, until the appeal is finally determined. The motion shall not be made or notice of motion served more than one year after the later of the preceding dates.”

The motion concedes that although defendants were granted an ex parte application to confirm the arbitration, before judgment could be entered plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection on March 26, 2019. The file does not show that judgment has yet been entered in this matter, and the moving papers concede that plaintiff is still currently in bankruptcy under a Chapter 13 petition.

Defendants indicate that they have been granted by the bankruptcy court relief from the automatic stay. [RFJN, Ex. A]. The bankruptcy court order indicates that as to movant, which is defined as the moving defendants here, Quickfix and Wilson-Hayden, the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C ; 362(a) is “Terminated as to the Debtor and the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate,” and that movants “may proceed in the nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in accordance with nonbankrupcy law.” [RFJN, Ex. A ¶¶ 4, 5].

Defendants indicate that they have recently made a request for entry of judgment. Again, that request has evidently not been acted upon by the court, and since such a motion “shall not be made until after entry of the final judgment in the action or proceeding,” this motion is premature, and should be denied without prejudice. It will be discussed at the hearing whether the relief from the stay makes it appropriate for the court to enter judgment to start the time running at this juncture.

RULING:

[No Opposition].

Motion for Release of Plaintiff’s $45,000 Undertaking is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. There has been no final judgment entered in this matter. See CCP ; 996.440.

UNOPPOSED Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The court notes that the bankruptcy court in plaintiff’s Chapter 13 proceedings has ordered the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C ; 362(a) with respect to movant, defendants Quickfix Investments, LLC and Blake Wilson-Hayden, terminated as to the bankruptcy debtor and the debtor’s bankruptcy estate, permitting moving defendants to proceed in this court to final judgment. The court will accordingly enter final judgment in accordance with the court’s order of February 13, 2019 confirming the contractual arbitration award as soon as a proper form of judgment is submitted by defendants.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where QUICKFIX INVESTMENTS LLC. is a litigant

Latest cases where TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION is a litigant

Latest cases where S.B.S. TRUST DEED NETWORK is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer COHEN EARLE H