Linley Investments et al v. Jerry Jamgotchian
Filing
193
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE PETITIONERS MOTION FOR AN ASSIGNMENT ORDER (DKT. 139) by Judge John A. Kronstadt: See order for details. (shb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
LINLEY INVESTMENTS, an Isle of
Man Limited Company;
ORPENDALE, Incorporated in the
Republic of Ireland; LYNCH BAGES
LIMITED, Incorporated in the
Republic of Ireland; WYNATT,
Incorporated in the Republic of
Ireland; CHELSTON (IRELAND),
Incorporated in the Republic of
Ireland; and SPRINGCON,
Incorporated in the Republic of
Ireland,
18
Case No. 2:11-cv-00724-JAK-(AFMx)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE RE PETITIONERS’ MOTION
FOR AN ASSIGNMENT ORDER
(DKT. 139)
Petitioners,
19
20
21
22
23
v.
JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN, an
individual,
Respondent.
24
25
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Report and
26
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the Court has engaged
27
in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Respondent has objected.
28
Respondent raises two arguments in his objection. Neither has merit.
1
First, Respondent contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying his
2
request to continue the hearing on the assignment motion. After reviewing the
3
circumstances prior to and during the hearing, the Court concludes that the Magistrate
4
Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the continuance, particularly where
5
Respondent would not agree to maintain the status quo during the period of any
6
continuance. In any event, through his objection to the Report and Recommendation,
7
Respondent and his recently retained counsel have had a full and fair opportunity to
8
oppose the assignment motion.
9
Second, Respondent contends that a “springing pledge” was created when he
10
and Preferred Bank entered into an “Assignment and Security Interest (Distribution
11
Agreement)” on February 1, 2019. In this Agreement, which was effective as of the
12
satisfaction of the judgment in the Caswell state court case, Respondent purported to
13
assign to Preferred Bank his rights to receive profit distributions from his ownership
14
of shares in three companies. These are rights and distributions that are also the
15
subject of the assignment order sought by Petitioner here. Relying on Brown v.
16
Superior Court, 116 Cal. App. 4th 320 (2004), Respondent argues that entry of the
17
assignment order should be delayed until the priority of any interest granted by him
18
in favor of Preferred Bank is resolved. The Court declines to delay entry of the order
19
on this basis. The lawyer in Brown actively asserted the priority of his lien. In
20
contrast, Preferred Bank, which has been on notice of these proceedings since at least
21
February 2019, has made no attempt to intervene in this case, assert priority, or
22
otherwise object to entry of the assignment order. In addition, as pointed out by
23
Petitioners, there has been no showing by Preferred Bank that it has perfected an
24
interest in rights to receive distributions from Respondent’s shares in the three
25
companies. Finally, the order in Brown was remanded for the trial court to assess
26
whether it “would promote substantial justice” to apply the proceeds of the lawsuit
27
to satisfy the judgment in question, despite the existence of the attorney’s lien. 116
28
Cal. App. 4th at 337. Here, Respondent’s objection fails to show how justice would
2
1
be promoted by delaying entry of the assignment order. The evidence establishes
2
that Respondent and Preferred Bank entered into their transaction concerning his
3
shares in the three companies only after learning that Petitioners were seeking an
4
order from this Court assigning Respondent’s right to receive distributions from those
5
very same shares.
6
7
Accordingly, the Respondent’s objections are overruled, and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted.
*
8
9
*
*
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that:
10
1.
Petitioners’ Motion for an Assignment Order is granted. Dkt. 139.
11
2.
Respondent’s right to receive distributions or dividends from shares in
12
the following six Corporations (whether they are held by Jerry Jamgotchian
13
individually or by the Jerry and Patricia Jamgotchian Revocable Living Trust) are
14
assigned to the Petitioners upon completion of the requirements of the assignment
15
order in the Caswell case and until such time as the judgment herein is fully satisfied
16
or this order is amended:
17
(a)
Olympic Avenue Ventures, Inc., a California corporation
18
(b)
Olympic Avenue Ventures Property, Inc., a California
corporation
19
20
(c)
Rialto Pockets Property, Inc.
21
(d)
El Segundo Plaza I, Inc., a California corporation
22
(e)
El Segundo Plaza II, Inc., a California corporation
23
(f)
South Bay Fitness, Inc., a California corporation
24
3.
Pursuant to CCP § 704.540, a copy of this Order shall be served upon
25
the registered agent for service of process for each of the six Corporations by certified
26
mail, return receipt requested. Upon receipt of such service and completion of the
27
requirements of the assignment order in the Caswell case, each Corporation shall
28
thereafter pay directly to Petitioners or their designee any dividends or distributions
3
1
otherwise payable to Jerry Jamgotchian individually, or to the Jerry and Patricia
2
Jamgotchian Revocable Living Trust, when such right to payment becomes due.
3
Such payments shall continue and shall be applied to the judgment herein until the
4
judgment is fully satisfied or the Order is amended.
5
4.
Pursuant to CCP § 708.520(a), Jerry Jamgotchian and any servant,
6
agent, employee or attorney for Jerry Jamgotchian and any person(s) in active concert
7
and participating with Jerry Jamgotchian are restrained from encumbering,
8
transferring, assigning, hypothecating, pledging, converting, disposing or liquidating
9
the shares of stock in the six Corporations giving right to payment of dividends, or
10
otherwise hindering Jerry Jamgotchian or the Jerry and Patricia Jamgotchian
11
Revocable Living Trust’s rights to payment from the six Corporations until the
12
judgment herein is fully satisfied or the Order is amended.
13
14
15
16
17
5.
Petitioners shall personally serve this Order upon Respondent forthwith
and file a corresponding proof of service.
6.
This Assignment Order shall not have any effect on the payments
required to be made pursuant to the assignment order in the Caswell case.
7.
As required by CCP § 708.520(d):
18
NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR ‒ FAILURE TO
19
COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY SUBJECT THE
20
JUDGMENT DEBTOR TO BEING HELD IN
21
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
22
23
24
25
26
DATED: April 22, 2019
____________________________________
JOHN A. KRONSTADT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?