United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California

United States Bankruptcy CourtCentral District of California

Judge Theodor Albert, PresidingCourtroom 5B Calendar

Santa Ana

Thursday, September 3, 2020 5B Hearing Room

10:00 AM8: - Chapter

#0.00 All hearings on this calendar will be conducted remotely, using

ZoomGov video and audio.

Parties in interest and members of the public may connect to the video and

audio feeds, free of charge, using the connection information provided

below.

Individuals may participate by ZoomGov video and audio using a personal

computer (equipped with camera, microphone and speaker), or a handheld

mobile device (such as an iPhone or Android phone). Individuals may opt

to participate by audio only using a telephone (standard telephone charges

may apply).

Neither a Zoom nor a ZoomGov account is necessary to participate and no

pre-registration is required. The audio portion of each hearing will be

recorded electronically by the Court and constitutes its official record.

Video/audio web address:https://cacb.zoomgov.com/j/1606769885

ZoomGov meeting number: 160 676 9885

Password: 166242

Telephone conference lines: 1 (669) 254 5252 or 1 (646) 828 7666

For more information on appearing before Judge Albert by ZoomGov, please see the "Notice of Video and Telephonic Appearance Procedures for

Page 1 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMCONT... Chapter

Judge Theodor C. Albert’s Cases" on the Court's website at: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/judges/honorable-theodor-c-albert under the "Telephonic Instructions" section.

To assist in creating a proper record and for the efficiency of these proceedings, please:

⦁ Connect early so that you have time to check in.

⦁ Change your Zoom name to include your calendar number, first

initial and last name, and client name (ex. 5, R. Smith, ABC Corp.) if

appearing by video. This can be done by clicking on "More" and

"Rename" from the Participants list or by clicking on the three dots

on your video tile.

⦁ Mute your audio to minimize background noise unless and until it is

your turn to speak. Consider turning your video off until it is your

turn to appear.

⦁ Say your name every time you speak.

⦁ Disconnect from the meeting by clicking "Leave" when you have

completed your appearance(s).

0Docket

Page 2 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMCONT... Chapter

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Page 3 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMPoint Center Financial, Inc.8:13-11495 Chapter 7

Howard B. Grobstein, Chapter 7 Trustee v. CALCOMM CAPITAL, INC., a Adv#: 8:15-01089

#1.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Third Amended Complaint for 91) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (2) Turnover; (3) Avoidance of Pre-Petition Fraudulent Transfers; (4) Avoidance of Unauthorized Post-Petition Transfers; (5) Recovery of Pre-Petition Fraudulent Transfers and Unauthorized Post-Petition Transfers; (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (7) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (8) Declaratory Relief. (con't from 8-27-20 at 10:00 a.m. per court)

83Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12-03-20 AT 10:00 A.M. PER ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO CONTINUED STATUS CONFERENCE ENTERED 8-28-20

Tentative for 2/27/20:Status conference continued to May 28, 2020 at 10:00AM. Looks like this case is drifting. Continue one last time.

----------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 11/7/19:See #15 at 11:00AM. Are parties prepared to set deadlines on complaint issues?

------------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 6/8/17:Status conference continued to September 7, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. with expectation that involuntary proceeding will be clarified and settlement examined.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Tentative Ruling:

Page 4 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMPoint Center Financial, Inc.CONT... Chapter 7

Tentative for 2/9/17:Status Conference continued to May 25, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Personal appearance not required.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Point Center Financial, Inc. Represented ByRobert P GoeJeffrey S BeniceCarlos F Negrete - INACTIVE -

Defendant(s):

Estancia Atascadero Investments, Pro Se

Georgetown Commercial Center, Pro Se

Island Way Investments I, LLC Pro Se

Island Way Investments II, LLC Pro Se

Lake Olympia Missouri City Pro Se

Michigan Avenue Grand Terrace Pro Se

Mission Ridge Ladera Ranch, LLC Pro Se

Olive Avenue Investors, LLC Represented ByJonathan Shenson

Enterprise Temecula, LLC Pro Se

Palm Springs Country Club Pro Se

Pinnacle Peak Investors, LLC Pro Se

Provo Industrial Parkway, LLC Pro Se

South 7th Street Investments, LLC Represented ByJonathan Shenson

Spanish and Colonial Ladera Pro Se

Summerwind Investors, LLC Pro Se

Page 5 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



Van Buren Investors, LLC Pro Se

White Mill Lake Investments, LLC Pro Se

Richard K. Diamond, solely in his Pro Se

Park Scottsdale, LLC Pro Se

Encinitas Ocean Investments, LLC Pro Se

El Jardin Atascadero Investments, Pro Se

Dillon Avenue 44, LLC Pro Se

CALCOMM CAPITAL, INC., a Represented ByNancy A ConroySean A OKeefe

NATIONAL FINANCIAL Represented ByNancy A Conroy

POINT CENTER MORTGAGE Represented ByCarlos F Negrete - INACTIVE -Nancy A ConroyJonathan Shenson

NATIONAL FINANCIAL Represented ByCarlos F Negrete - INACTIVE -Sean A OKeefe

Dan J. Harkey Represented ByNancy A ConroySean A OKeefe

M. Gwen Melanson Represented ByNancy A Conroy

RENE ESPARZA Represented ByNancy A Conroy

DOES 1-30, inclusive Pro Se

16th Street San Diego Investors, Pro Se

Page 6 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



6th & Upas Investments, LLC Pro Se

Altamonte Springs Church Pro Se

Andalucia Investors, LLC Pro Se

Anthem Office Investors, LLC Pro Se

Buckeye Investors, LLC Pro Se

Calhoun Investments, LLC Pro Se

Capital Hotel Investors, LLC Pro Se

Champagne Blvd Investors, LLC Represented ByJonathan Shenson

Cobb Parkway Investments, LLC Pro Se

Deer Canyon Investments, LLC Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Howard B. Grobstein, Chapter 7 Represented ByJohn P ReitmanRodger M LandauRoye ZurMonica Rieder

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented ByRodger M LandauRoye ZurKathy Bazoian PhelpsJohn P ReitmanRobert G Wilson - SUSPENDED -Monica RiederJon L DalbergMichael G SpectorPeter J GurfeinJack A Reitman

Page 7 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMPoint Center Financial, Inc.8:13-11495 Chapter 7

Howard Grobstein, as Chapter 7 trustee v. NATIONAL FINANCIAL Adv#: 8:16-01041

#2.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Fraudulent Transfers or, in the Alternative Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers (con't from 8-27-20 at 10:00 a.m. per court)

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12-03-20 AT 10:00 A.M. PER ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE ENTERED 8-28-20

Tentative for 2/27/20:Status conference continued to May 28, 2020 at 10:00AM. Some of these cases appear to be drifting. Continue one last time.

---------------------------------------------

Tentative for 12/5/19:Why no status report?

-------------------------------------------------

See #16.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Point Center Financial, Inc. Represented ByRobert P GoeJeffrey S BeniceCarlos F Negrete

Defendant(s):

NATIONAL FINANCIAL Pro Se

Page 8 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



Plaintiff(s):

Howard Grobstein, as Chapter 7 Represented ByRoye Zur

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented ByRodger M LandauRoye ZurKathy Bazoian PhelpsJohn P ReitmanRobert G WilsonMonica RiederJon L DalbergMichael G SpectorPeter J Gurfein

U.S. Trustee(s):

United States Trustee (SA) Pro Se

Page 9 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMRobert A. Ferrante8:10-10310 Chapter 7

Estate of William L. Seay v. Thomas H. CaseyAdv#: 8:19-01131

#3.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint by Plaintiff: Estate of William L. Seay against Defendant: Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee (con't from 8-27-20 at 10:00 a.m. per court)

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 11-12-20 AT 10:00 A.M. PER ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE ENTERED 9-02-20

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Robert A. Ferrante Represented ByRichard M Moneymaker - INACTIVE -Arash ShirdelRyan D O'Dea

Defendant(s):

Thomas H. Casey Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Estate of William L. Seay Represented ByBrian Lysaght

Trustee(s):

Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented ByThomas H CaseyThomas A VogeleKathleen J McCarthyBrendan Loper

Page 10 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMGuy S. Griffithe8:19-12480 Chapter 7

Bagot v. GriffitheAdv#: 8:19-01201

#4.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint Of NonDischargeability And Exception From Discharge Of Debts(cont'd from 3-5-2020)

1Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:Continue status conference to August 5, 2021 @ 10:00. Can be advanced by any party on motion.

------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 3/5/20:See #17

-----------------------------------------------

Tentative for 1/16/20:See #6. The status conference will travel together with any dismissal motions. Appearance not required.

---------------------------------------------

Tentative for 12/19/19:Status conference continued to January 16, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. to coincide with motion to dismiss.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Guy S. Griffithe Represented ByBert Briones

Page 11 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMGuy S. GriffitheCONT... Chapter 7

Defendant(s):Guy S. Griffithe Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Steven Bagot Represented ByHeidi Urness

Trustee(s):

Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se

Page 12 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMGuy S. Griffithe8:19-12480 Chapter 7

Bagot v. GriffitheAdv#: 8:19-01201

#5.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Motion For Temporary Abstention(set at hearing held on 3-5-2020)

29Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:See #4.

-----------------------------------------------

Tentative for 3/5/20:This is the Plaintiff’s motion for "Temporary Abstention" and for stay of

the pending litigation in favor of a proceeding in Washington State Court.

Oddly, the motion is not brought for permissive abstention under 28 U.S.C.§

1334(c) but rather under the court’s "inherent power to regulate their dockets

and should use it to stay litigation pending resolution of another case or

arbitration proceeding where it will dispose of or narrow the issues to be

resolved in that litigation." In re Barney’s Inc., 206 B.R. 336, 343-44 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y. 1997). As near as the court can determine, the standards are

largely the same.

It is well established that a federal court has "broad discretion to stay

proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket." Clinton v.

Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-707, 117 S. Ct. 1636 (1997); see also Landis v.

North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255, 57 S. Ct. 163, 166 (1936) ("[T]he

power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls

for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and

maintain an even balance."); O’Dean v. Tropicana Cruises International, Inc.,

Tentative Ruling:

Page 13 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



1999 WL 335381, *4 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (federal court suspended action

pending disposition of arbitration proceeding); Evergreen Marine Corp. v.

Welgrow International, Inc., 954 F.Supp. 101, 103-105 (S.D.N.Y.1997)

(authorized stay in federal proceedings pending disposition of related foreign

action).

The Ninth Circuit has enumerated factors a bankruptcy court should

weigh when it considers whether to permissively abstain from hearing a

matter before it. See Christiansen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson

Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 1990). Those factors include: (1)

the effect or lack thereof on the efficient administration of the estate if a Court

recommends abstention,(2) the extent to which state law issues predominate

over bankruptcy issues, (3) the difficulty or unsettled nature of the applicable

law, (4) the presence of a related proceeding commenced in state court or

other non-bankruptcy court, (5) the jurisdictional basis, if any, other than 28

U.S.C. § 1334,(6) the degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding

to the main bankruptcy case, (7) the substance rather than form of an

asserted core proceeding, (8) the feasibility of severing state law claims from

core bankruptcy matters to allow judgments to be entered in state court with

enforcement left to the bankruptcy court, (9) the burden of the bankruptcy

court’s docket, (10) the likelihood that the commencement of the proceeding

in bankruptcy court involves forum shopping by one of the parties, (11) the

existence of a right to a jury trial, and (12) the presence in the proceeding of

non-debtor parties.

Plaintiff cites a less exhaustive five factor analysis for suspending or

staying a nondischargeability action as follows: (1) The burden of the

proceeding on the defendant; (2)The interest of the plaintiff in expeditiously

pursuing the action and prejudice resulting from any delay;(3) The

convenience of the court in the management of its cases and the efficient use

of judicial resources; (4) The interests of non-parties to the litigation; and (5)

The interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation. In re

Government Securities Corp., 81 B.R. 692, 694 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1987). See

Page 14 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



also, Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805,

809 (N.D. Cal. 1989).

Although the parties do not agree on which set of factors is correct, the

parties do agree that not all of the above factors are applicable nor are they of

equal weight. Plaintiff’s most persuasive argument for abstention from this

court, and one that Defendant does not dispute, is that Plaintiff and

Defendant are already heavily engaged in an action in Washington state

court. According to Plaintiff, the allegations in the state court action mirror

those of the allegations made in this adversary proceeding. Defendant

argues that this is a false assertion as there is no mention of anything in the

Washington state court action that mirror Plaintiff’s §727 claims, although

Defendant does concede that Plaintiff’s §523 claims are mirrored by the

allegations in the Washington state court action. The Washington state court

action was filed over a year ago and is reportedly set for trial in April of 2020.

Consequently, it seems feasible for the Washington matter to proceed to trial

and judgment on the issues underlying the §523(a) claims (and certain of the

§727 theories involving pre-petition behavior). Provided that Plaintiff is

careful in obtaining detailed and clear findings, Plaintiff can then resolve this

adversary proceeding under collateral estoppel theories by Rule 56 motion.

To the extent that Defendant is correct in his assertion that Plaintiff’s §727

claims are not mirrored in the state court action, Plaintiff asserts that he will

simply drop those claims as they will likely be unnecessary after the state

court rules on the underlying claims. Plaintiff has already obtained relief from

stay. Considering the resources that the parties have already expended in

Washington, including pre-trial motions, discovery, etc., the parties should

likely finish what they started up there. This approach would conserve

resources here and would not likely result in duplication of effort.

Concerning the administrative law claims and SEC claims pending in

Washington State against Defendant, Plaintiff argues that resolution of these

claims will help narrow the issues even further or could even provide

additional probative details, which Plaintiff argues is a proper justification for

Page 15 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



abstention. Defendant argues that these other cases should not be

considered for purposes of abstention because they do not directly involve

Plaintiff, but this argument is less compelling because Defendant does not

attempt to argue that such litigation would not serve to narrow the issues or

provide useful additional background. Defendants other arguments against

abstention, including the recent withdrawal of Defendant’s counsel and a

vague argument regarding the purported untimeliness of this motion, do not

really move the needle in Defendant’s favor. Related to the purported

untimeliness of this motion is Defendant’s argument that this motion is

premature because if Defendant’s dismissal motion is granted, then this

motion becomes essentially moot. Plaintiff notes that Defendant cites no

authority for the proposition that dismissal of the complaint would also end the

Washington state court action. Defendant’s argument also ignores that

complaints after Rule 12 motions can be (and very likely would be) amended

if they are found to be defective.

In sum, Plaintiff has made a persuasive case for staying proceedings in

this court and allowing the parties to litigate what are largely matters of state

law in Washington state court, especially since the parties are on the

doorstep of trial. Thus, as Plaintiff urges, the court should use its power under

§105(a) to temporarily abstain or stay this adversary proceeding pending

resolution in Washington state court. Plaintiff is cautioned to obtain clear and

dispositive findings on the operative issues such that collateral estoppel can

govern in subsequent Rule 56 motion.

Grant abstention. This adversary proceeding is stayed until Plaintiff

seeks to return for a Rule 56 motion. The court will schedule a status

conference approximately 180 days out for evaluation.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Guy S. Griffithe Represented ByBert Briones

Page 16 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



Defendant(s):

Guy S. Griffithe Pro Se

Movant(s):

Steven Bagot Represented ByHeidi UrnessRichard H GolubowPeter W Lianides

Plaintiff(s):

Steven Bagot Represented ByHeidi UrnessRichard H GolubowPeter W Lianides

Trustee(s):

Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se

Page 17 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMKenneth David Bishop8:18-11155 Chapter 7

Marshack v. FosterAdv#: 8:20-01032

#6.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint for: 1. Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfer; 2. Avoidance and Recovery of Intentional Fraudulent Transfer and; 3. Avoidance and Recovery of Constructively Fraudulent Transfer(con't from 8-27-20 at 10:00 a.m. per court)

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12-03-20 AT 10:00 A.M. PER ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE ENTERED 8-31-20

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kenneth David Bishop Represented ByLeonard M Shulman

Defendant(s):

Hal Foster Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Richard A Marshack Represented ByRobert P Goe

Trustee(s):

Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented ByRobert P Goe

Page 18 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMJee Hyuk Shin8:19-11521 Chapter 7

Marshack v. Shin et alAdv#: 8:20-01045

#7.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint For: I. Turnover 11 U.S.C. Sec. 542 & 543; II. Avoidance 11 U.S.C. Sec. 544; III. Avoidance 11 U.S.C. Sec. 548; IV. Liability 11 U.S.C. Sec. 550; V.Avoidance 11 U.S.C. Sec. 549; VI. Sale Of Property 11 U.S.C. Sec 363(h); VII. Avoidance 11 U.S.C. Sec. 547 (con't from 8-27-20 at 10:00 a.m. per court)

1Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:It appears that the case is not yet at issue with response of certain parties still awaited. Continue to Nov. 12 @ 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff to give notice to all parties who have or will respond.

-----------------------------------------------

Tentative for 6/25/20:Continue approximately 60 days to allow service to be effected.

Please note: In light of concerns about COVID-19/Coronavirus and attempts to implement physical distancing, and pursuant to GO 20-02, telephonic appearances are mandatory on all matters. Telephonic appearances may be arranged with CourtCall by calling (866) 582-6878.

Please be advised that CourtCall has announced reduced fees for attorneys to use CourtCall and free access for parties who do not have an attorney –pro se or self-represented litigants through August 31, 2020.

The Parties are reminded to have all relevant filings/information easily accessible during the hearing.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jee Hyuk Shin Pro Se

Page 19 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMJee Hyuk ShinCONT... Chapter 7

Defendant(s):

Jee Hyuk Shin Pro Se

GODDO SAVE Pro Se

Jae Shin Pro Se

Bang Shin Pro Se

Jeemin Shin Pro Se

Mini Million Corporation Pro Se

Theodore Ebel Pro Se

Mojerim, Inc. Pro Se

Insook Shin Pro Se

Seafresh Restaurant Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Richard A Marshack Represented ByAnerio V Altman

Trustee(s):

Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented ByAnerio V Altman

Page 20 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMKatie Ki Sook Kim8:20-10545 Chapter 7

Romex Textiles, Inc. v. KimAdv#: 8:20-01093

#8.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint to determine dischargeability of a debt and objection to discharge(case reassigned from Judge Catherine E. Bauer per admin order 20-07 dated 7-15-20)

1Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:Per request, continued to December 3 @ 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff to give notice.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Katie Ki Sook Kim Represented ByJoon M Khang

Defendant(s):

Katie Ki Sook Kim Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Romex Textiles, Inc. Represented ByNico N Tabibi

Trustee(s):

Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented ByAnerio V Altman

Page 21 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMAEPC Group, LLC8:20-11611 Chapter 11

AEPC Group, LLC v. SLATE ADVANCEAdv#: 8:20-01097

#9.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint For: 1. Declaratory Relief;2. Usury;3. Injunction;

4. Avoidance of Preferential Transfers; 5. Avoidance of Lien and Equitable Subordination; 6. Avoidance and Preservation of Lien Claims; 7. Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers; 8. Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers; 9. Value of Assets and Extent of Lien; 10. Disallowance of Claim; 11. Unconscionability; 12. California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 ET SEQ.; 13. Neglience Per Se-Violation of California Finance Lending Law; 14. Violation of New York General Business Law Section 349(con't from 8-27-20 at 10:00 a.m. per court)

0Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:Continue to October 29, 2020 @ 10:00 a.m.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

AEPC Group, LLC Represented ByJeffrey S Shinbrot

Defendant(s):

SLATE ADVANCE Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

AEPC Group, LLC Represented ByJeffrey S Shinbrot

Page 22 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMAEPC Group, LLCCONT... Chapter 11

Page 23 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMGuadalupe E Marquez Cid8:20-10987 Chapter 7

United States Trustee v. Marquez CidAdv#: 8:20-01098

#10.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Complaint Objecting to the Discharge.

1Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Guadalupe E Marquez Cid Represented ByDaniel King

Defendant(s):

Guadalupe E Marquez Cid Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

United States Trustee Represented ByNancy S Goldenberg

Trustee(s):

Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se

Page 24 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMBP Fisher Law Group, LLP8:19-10158 Chapter 7

Peleus Insurance Company v. BP Fisher Law Group, LLP et alAdv#: 8:20-01100

#11.00 STATUS CONFERENCE RE: Adversary Complaint for Declaratory Relief(con't from 8-27-20 at 10:00 a.m. per court)

1Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:It would appear there are several preliminary questions concerning jurisdiction and proper venue. It makes sense to sort these out first before discovery commences and deadlines are imposed. Consequently, the status conference will be continued to December 10, 2020 @ 2020. I meantime, the parties are ordered to file such motions as are necessary and appropriate to resolve the questions about proper venue and /or withdrawal of reference. By the continued status conference the court expects those issues to be resolved.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

BP Fisher Law Group, LLP Represented ByMarc C ForsytheMichael S Myers

Defendant(s):

BP Fisher Law Group, LLP Pro Se

LF Runoff 2, LLC Pro Se

Matthew Browndorf Pro Se

Andrew Corcoran Pro Se

Shannon Kreshtool Pro Se

Ditech Financial, LLC Pro Se

SELECT PORTFOLIO Pro Se

Page 25 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMBP Fisher Law Group, LLPCONT... Chapter 7

BP Peterman Legal Group, LLC Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Peleus Insurance Company Represented ByLinda B OliverAndrew B Downs

Trustee(s):

Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented ByD Edward HaysDavid WoodTinho MangMarc C ForsytheCharity J Manee

Page 26 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMCatherine M Haretakis8:17-13482 Chapter 11

Pacific Western Bank v. HaretakisAdv#: 8:17-01240

#12.00 PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE RE: Complaint (1) Objecting to Discharge Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 727(a)(2) and (2) to Determine Debt Non-Dischargeable Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(6)(set from s/c hrg. held 3-12-20) (con't from 8-27-20 at 10:00 a.m. per court)

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 11-05-20 AT 10:00 A.M. PER ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ENTERED 8-10-20

Tentative for 3/12/20:First, why the very late status report? Filing less than 2 days before the status conference not only violates the LBRs, it is an affront and imposition upon the court. Be prepared to discuss the suitable amount of sanctions.

Status conference continued to July 2, 2020 at 10:00AM. Deadline for completing discovery: May 30, 2020Last date for filing pre-trial motions: June 22, 2020Pre-trial conference on:Joint pre-trial order due per local rules.

------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 2/27/20:Is this resolved? Dismiss?

------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 1/9/20:See #3

------------------------------------------------

Tentative Ruling:

Page 27 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMCatherine M HaretakisCONT... Chapter 11

Tentative for 12/19/19:See #2.1

------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 11/21/19:See #2.1

--------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 4/5/18:1. Parties are to submit an order consolidating the contested matter regarding the homestead with this dischargeability/denial of discharge adversary proceeding;

2. Deadline for completing discovery: September 1, 2018Last date for filing pre-trial motions: September 24, 2018Pre-trial conference on: October 25, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.Joint pre-trial order due per local rules.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Catherine M Haretakis Represented ByDonald W Sieveke

Defendant(s):

Catherine M Haretakis Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Pacific Western Bank Represented ByKenneth Hennesay

Page 28 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


10:00 AMMatthew Charles Crowley8:12-17406 Chapter 7

Crowley v. Navient Solutions, LLCAdv#: 8:19-01073

#13.00 PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE RE: Complaint for: Determination that Student Loan Debt is Dischargeable Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(8)(cont'd from 7-02-20 per order on stip. to continue pre-trial conf. entered 6-30-20)

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10-08-20 AT 10:00 A.M. PER ORDER ON PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ENTERED 8-17-20

Tentative for 7/11/19:Deadline for completing discovery: November 30, 2019Last date for filing pre-trial motions: December 16, 2019Pre-trial conference on: January 9, 2020 at 10:00AMJoint pre-trial order due per local rules.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Matthew Charles Crowley Represented ByChristine A Kingston

Defendant(s):

Navient Solutions, LLC Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Matthew C Crowley Represented ByChristine A Kingston

Page 29 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


11:00 AMKelly Owen8:08-10789 Chapter 7

Wiese v. Owen et alAdv#: 8:08-01191

#14.00 Order To Show Cause Why Adversary Proceeding Should Not Be Closed RE:Complaint false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) ,(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))

1Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:Adversary case dismissed. Court will prepare the order.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kelly Owen Represented ByGary LeibowitzDavid Brian Lally

Defendant(s):

Kelly Owen Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Cindy Wiese Represented ByChristopher G Weston

Trustee(s):

John M Wolfe (TR) Represented ByJohn M Wolfe

Page 30 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


11:00 AMi.i. Fuels, Inc.8:18-11154 Chapter 7

Marshack v. West Coast Business Capital LLC et alAdv#: 8:20-01041

#15.00 Defendant's West Coast Business Capital, LLC's Motion To Dismiss 12(b)(1)(6)(cont'd from 8-13-20 per order approving stip. to cont. motion to dismiss entered 7-30-20)

27Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:Given that the Trustee intends to amend, and that even if the motion was granted it would almost certainly be with leave to amend, it seems the better part of valor is to simply continue the dismissal motion briefly, say 30 days, with the expectation that an amended complaint will likely be filed.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

i.i. Fuels, Inc. Represented ByLeonard M Shulman

Defendant(s):

West Coast Business Capital LLC Represented ByMichael W Davis

Vernon Capital Group LLC Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Richard A Marshack Represented ByRafael R Garcia-SalgadoRobert P Goe

Trustee(s):


Page 31 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



Marshack v. CapCall LLC, a New York Limited Liability CompanyAdv#: 8:20-01042

#16.00 Defendant EBF Partners, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Complaint For Failure To State A Claim For Relief And For More Definite Statement(cont'd from 7-23-20 per order approving stip. to cont. mtn to dismiss entered 7-20-20)

79Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 11-05-20 AT 11:00 A.M. PER ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT EBF PARTNERS, LLC TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS ENTERED 8-24-20

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Defendant(s):

CapCall LLC, a New York Limited Represented ByLei Lei Wang Ekvall

EBF Partners LLC, a Delaware Represented ByMichael W Davis

Forward Financing LLC, a Delaware Represented ByM Douglas Flahaut

Mantis Funding LLC, a Delaware Represented ByHoward Steinberg

NEXGEN Capital Limited Liability Pro Se

Queen Funding LLC, a New Jersey Pro Se

Yes Funding Corp., a New York Pro Se

Page 32 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


11:00 AMi.i. Fuels, Inc.CONT... Chapter 7

Atlas Acquisitions, LLC, a New Pro Se

Capital Stack Fund II LLC, a Pro Se

New Era Lending, a California Pro Se

Arch Capital Advisors, Inc., a Pro Se

CoreFund Capital, LLC, a Texas Represented ByLei Lei Wang Ekvall

Plaintiff(s):


Trustee(s):


Page 33 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana




#17.00 Motion To Dismiss Complaint Against CapCall, LLC, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)(cont'd from 8-06-20 per order approving stip. between plaintiff and defendant capcall, llc to cont. hrg. on mtn to dsm entered 7-23-20)

120Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:Given that the Trustee intends to amend, and that even if the motion was granted it would almost certainly be with leave to amend and considering that the tentative on the Rule 21 severance motion is to grant, it seems the better part of valor is to simply continue the dismissal motion briefly, say 30 days, with the expectation that amended and/or separate complaints will likely be filed.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Defendant(s):


EBF Partners LLC, a Delaware Represented ByMichael W Davis

Forward Financing LLC, a Delaware Represented ByM Douglas FlahautAnnie Y Stoops


Page 34 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana










CoreFund Capital, LLC, a Texas Represented ByLei Lei Wang Ekvall

Plaintiff(s):


Trustee(s):

Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented ByRobert P GoeRafael R Garcia-Salgado

Page 35 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana




#18.00 Motion to Sever Claims Pursuant to FRCP 21 and FRBP 7021

160Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:This is a motion to sever pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 brought jointly

by Defendants, Mantis Funding LLC ("Mantis"), CapCall, LLC ("CapCall") and

Forward Financing LLC ("Forward Financing") (collectively "Movants"). The

motion is opposed by Richard Marshack ("Trustee"), the chapter 7 trustee for

Debtor, i.i. Fuels, Inc. ("Debtor").

1. Background

As related by Movants, on March 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed the

Complaint, which pertains to several separate transactions with the Debtor.

Illustrating the separate nature of the transactions, in the Complaint factual

allegations against Mantis effectively amount to a single discrete paragraph

(Paragraph 55), which describes an August 2017 Merchant Cash Advance by

which Mantis paid to Debtor $125,000 in exchange for purchasing a specified

amount of the Debtor’s future receivables. The allegations against CapCall

boil down to a different single paragraph (Paragraph 57), which alleges that

CapCall paid to Debtor $300,000 as part of a merchant cash advance. And

the Complaint’s factual allegations against Forward Financing are confined to

two other different paragraphs (Paragraphs 53 and 54) alleging that it entered

into agreements with Debtor for multiple cash advances.

There are no facts in the Complaint alleging that any of the three

Movants had any connection or relationship with any of the other defendants

or with each other. All three Movants are represented by separate counsel.

Mantis and Forward Financing separately answered the Complaint. (Dkt. Nos.

Tentative Ruling:

Page 36 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



53, 92.) CapCall filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it (Dkt. No. 120),

which is currently scheduled to be heard on September 3, 2020. (Dkt. No.

138.)

The other defendant to have appeared is EBF, which filed a motion to

dismiss, but which also continued the hearing on its motion to September 3,

2020 to facilitate settlement discussions. (Dkt. No. 136.) The Court also has

ordered, pursuant to a stipulation between Plaintiff and EBF, that discovery

as to EBF "shall be stayed and tolled pending resolution" of EBF’s motion to

dismiss or further order of the Court. (Id.) Of the remaining defendants, seven

are in default, and Plaintiff moved for default judgments against six of those,

which motions the Court granted on July 30, 2020.2 (Dkt. Nos. 57-70.) The

claims against Corefund Capital, LLC have been dismissed without prejudice.

On July 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed four separate and unrelated Rule 7016 Joint

Status Reports for each of the Moving Defendants as well as EBF. (Dkt. Nos.

126-129.) In their respective Joint Status Reports, Mantis, EBF, and CapCall

sought or raised the issue of severance. At the Status Conference on July 23,

2020, the Moving Defendants again explained that the claims against each of

them should be severed into independent adversary proceedings. Plaintiff

opposes the request but does not articulate any specific reason or basis for

why claims regarding separate transactions with separate defendants should

be lumped together into one combined action, thus necessitating this Motion.

2. Legal Standards

Fed. R. Civ. P 21, made applicable to these proceedings by Federal

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7021, provides that "[o]n motion or on its own,

the court may at any time on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may

also sever any claim against a party." When considering a motion to sever

under Rule 21, courts in the Ninth Circuit consider (a) whether the right to

relief asserted by the plaintiff arises out of the "same transaction, occurrence,

or series of transactions or occurrences," and (b) whether "there are common

questions of law or fact." Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350-51 (9th

Page 37 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



Cir. 1997) (granting motion to sever where "trial efficiency will not be

promoted by allowing [multiple plaintiffs] to bring a single case" because "[e]

ach claim raises potentially different issues, and must be viewed in a separate

and individual light by the Court"); see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232

F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding district court’s decision to grant

defendant’s motion to sever claims). The phrase "transaction or occurrence"

refers to "‘similarity in the factual background of a claim’; claims that ‘arise out

of a systematic pattern of events’ arise from the same transaction or

occurrence." Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir.

2000) (Reinhardt, J., concurring) (quoting Coughlin, 130 F.3d at 1350).

"Rule 21 applies when either (1) the claims asserted by or against the

joined parties do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or (2) do

not present some common question of law or fact." Winner’s Circle of Las

Vegas, Inc. v. AMI Franchising Inc., 916 F. Supp. 1024, 1029 (D. Nev. 1996)

(emphasis added); see also Jonas v. Conrath, 149 F.R.D. 520, 523 (S.D. W.

Va. 1993) ("While Rule 21 is silent on the standard applicable for determining

misjoinder, ‘courts have uniformly held that parties are misjoined when they

fail to satisfy either of the preconditions for permissive joinder of parties set

forth in Rule 20(a).’" (emphasis added)) (quoting Breton v. Commcn’s Satellite

Corp., 116 F.R.D. 162, 163 (D.D.C. 1987)). Bankruptcy courts may consider

the following factors: (1) whether claims arise out of the same transaction or

occurrence; (2) whether claims present some common questions of law or

fact; (3) whether settlement of claims or judicial economy would be facilitated;

(4) whether prejudice will be avoided if a severance is granted; and (5)

whether different witnesses and documentary proof are required for the

separate claims. See In re Last, 440 B.R. 642, 654 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010)

(applying test adopted by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of

New York).

3. The Claims Should Be Severed

Movants make compelling arguments in favor of severing the claims

Page 38 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



because they persuasively demonstrate that the claims against the individual

defendants do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence, or series of

transactions or occurrences. Specifically, Trustee is attempting to recover

amounts allegedly discretely transferred by Debtor to each of the three

Moving Defendants pursuant to three completely separate agreements, with

completely separate terms, that were entered into at different times for

different reasons and pursuant to different documentation and applications.

Moreover, Movants argue that the alleged transactions with each defendant

are different, and the terms of each Movant’s separate agreements with

Debtor would involve entirely different testimonial and documentary evidence,

with different witnesses, custodians, and legal issues, including whether (as

Plaintiff contends) any of the various transactions were loans. And, Movants

argue, as the motion-to-dismiss briefing already on file illustrates, there are

different choice-of-law disputes as to each separate defendant’s transactions

with the Debtor.

Furthermore, Movants persuasively argue that Trustee’s own conduct

is tantamount to an admission that severance is appropriate. For example,

Plaintiff conducted separate Rule 7026 conferences prior to the scheduling

conference with the Court, then filed four independent and unrelated Rule

7016 Joint Status Reports (Dkt. Nos. 126-129), and even sought independent

default judgments against still other defendants who also have no alleged

connection to the four defendants that have appeared to defend against

Plaintiff’s claims.

Movants concede that Plaintiff has the same general theory that all the

transactions are actually loans, but Movants argue that a similar theory is not

enough to warrant joining all the defendants together, for it is settled that "the

mere fact that . . . claims arise under the same general law does not

necessarily establish a common question of law or fact." Coughlin, 130 F.3d

at 1351. To illustrate the point, Movants analogize the complaint to a slip-and-

fall situation wherein a person slips and falls in three different stores, on three

different days then files one complaint against all three stores. Movants point

Page 39 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



out that there would be different surrounding circumstances, evidence,

witnesses, etc. to be put forth at a trial. A single trial would be a messy and

inefficient use of resources. Thus, Movants conclude, the motion is amply

supported by good cause.

Trustee’s opposition seems to focus on the inconvenience of holding

separate trials. After all, Trustee asserts, the claims are actually not all that

different, and would include some overlapping facts, documents, and

witnesses. Trustee asserts that it would be inconvenient for certain witnesses

to have to make appearances at separate trials especially when their

testimony might be substantially similar in the different trials. Trustee also

asserts that having one larger trial would be more efficient and more

conducive to a settlement.

Movants and Trustee both insist that their preferred course would lead

to more efficient use of resources. However, the court is persuaded by

Movants’ assertion that severance will promote settlement of claims and

judicial economy because separate actions with focused and narrower

discovery will accelerate the exchange of information and legal positions and

may (hopefully) lead to informal resolution. The court is not persuaded that

single longer trial will have this same effect. The court generally prefers

smaller trials with narrow issues to a single mega-trial with multiple parties,

different evidence, different witnesses, etc. It is not difficult to imagine how

confusing that could become. Additionally, it seems likely that some

Defendants would be forced sit idly for significant periods while Trustee

attempted to prove each claim against each of the other separate defendants,

which is not an efficient use of time or resources. Finally, the court is

sympathetic to the Movants’ concern over undue prejudice including (i) sitting

in on numerous unnecessary group depositions involving alleged transactions

that are wholly unrelated to anyone other than the deposed defendant; and

(ii) significantly heighten the risk of exposing proprietary and confidential

information to other defendants, who are competitors.

Page 40 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


11:00 AMi.i. Fuels, Inc.CONT... Chapter 7In sum, the court is well-satisfied that Movants have made persuasive

arguments in favor of granting the Rule 21 motion.

Grant

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Defendant(s):


EBF Partners LLC, a Delaware Represented ByMichael W DavisMegan Oneill

Forward Financing LLC, a Delaware Represented ByM Douglas FlahautAnnie Y Stoops









CoreFund Capital, LLC, a Texas Represented By

Page 41 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana



Lei Lei Wang Ekvall

Plaintiff(s):


Trustee(s):

Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented ByRobert P GoeRafael R Garcia-Salgado

Page 42 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


2:00 PMElmer Clarke8:17-12406 Chapter 7

Little v. ClarkeAdv#: 8:17-01245

#19.00 PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE RE: Complaint to Determine NonDischargeability of Debts Arising from Fraud; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Conversion [11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2),(a)(4) and (a)(6)](set from s/c held on 3-12-20 )(continued from 8-27-2020 at 2:00 p.m. per court)

1Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:See #20.

--------------------------------------------

Tentative for 7/2/20:Frustrating. This is scheduled as a pretrial conference yet no joint pretrial stipulation is seen although it is required under the LBRs and was the topic of specific warnings given last time. All we have is a somewhat lame "status report" from plaintiff that reports settlement attempts were rebuffed. This is not acceptable and is not an excuse. The lack of progress is doubly concerning since the court is informed that a state court judgment which was to be basis for a Rule 56 motion to be brought by plaintiff has been finally resolved after appeal for months now. So, why no motion? No joint stimulation? Nothing. Defendant has moved to dismiss for these failures. The court will hear argument.

No tentative.

Please note: In light of concerns about COVID-19/Coronavirus and attempts to implement physical distancing, and pursuant to GO 20-02, telephonic appearances are mandatory on all matters. Telephonic appearances may be arranged with CourtCall by calling (866) 582-6878.

Tentative Ruling:

Page 43 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


2:00 PMElmer ClarkeCONT... Chapter 7

Please be advised that CourtCall has announced reduced fees for attorneys to use CourtCall and free access for parties who do not have an attorney –pro se or self-represented litigants through August 31, 2020.

The Parties are reminded to have all relevant filings/information easily accessible during the hearing.

---------------------------------------------

Tentative for 3/12/20:Status?

---------------------------------------------

Tentative for 9/5/19:Why no status report? Status of state court matter?

---------------------------------------------

Tentative for 4/11/19:Why no status report? Status of state court matter?

---------------------------------------------

Tentative for 10/11/18:Does plaintiff agree that a further delay pending appeal is the best course?

------------------------------------------------

Tentative for 3/8/18:Why no status report?

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elmer Clarke Represented ByPatrick J D'Arcy

Page 44 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


2:00 PMElmer ClarkeCONT... Chapter 7

Defendant(s):

Elmer Clarke Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Katie L. Little Represented ByR Grace Rodriguez

Trustee(s):


Page 45 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM



Santa Ana


2:00 PMElmer Clarke8:17-12406 Chapter 7

Little v. ClarkeAdv#: 8:17-01245

#20.00 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding Brought By Katie Little Without Prejudice For Want Of Prosecution Against Elmer Clarke

29Docket

Tentative for 9/3/20:The court is not happy with parties, like Ms. Little, that wait until the very last minute to file responses that were by the local rules due two weeks ago. This was on top of previous inexplicable delays. Even though the court prefers to decide matters on their merits, the delays here are extreme and unjustified. The court will hear argument as to whether, notwithstanding, leniency should be given. No tentative.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):


Defendant(s):


Plaintiff(s):

Katie L. Little Represented ByR Grace Rodriguez

Trustee(s):


Page 46 of 469/2/2020 5:42:59 PM

Documents

United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California