United States of America v. The Real Property Known as The Viceroy LErmitage Beverly Hills
Filing
175
FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. SEE FINAL JUDGMENT FOR SPECIFICS. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)
JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
10
11
12
13
14
Case No. 16-05368-DSF (PLAx)
Plaintiff,
FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
v.
REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
VICEROY L’ERMITAGE BEVERLY
HILLS,
Defendant.
15
16
Upon consideration of the Unopposed Application for Entry of
17
Final Judgment of Forfeiture (the “Application”) filed by Plaintiff
18
United
19
Eidelman, not individually, but in his capacity as court-appointed
20
Special
21
Government, the “Movants”), seeking entry of a Final Judgment of
22
Forfeiture, for good cause the Court hereby finds and orders as
23
follows:
States
Master
of
America
(the
“Special
“Government”)
Master”
and,
and
Michael
collectively
M.
with
FINDINGS
24
25
(the
A.
On
July 20,
action
2016,
Government
“L’Ermitage
initiated
27
alleging that all assets relating to the business operated as the
28
Viceroy
Hills
(the
Assets
civil
forfeiture
Beverly
Business
a
26
L’Ermitage
(the
the
“Business
Action”)
Assets”),
as
1
described in Attachment A to the Government’s Verified Complaint
2
for
3
subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and (C).
4
Forfeiture
B.
In
Rem
[Case
No. 16-05369,
Dkt.
No. 1-1],
are
On July 20, 2016, the Government initiated a separate
5
civil forfeiture action (together with the L’Ermitage Business
6
Assets Action, the “L’Ermitage Actions”) alleging that the real
7
property
8
“Property”, and together with the Business Assets, the “Defendant
9
Assets”), as described in Attachment A to the Government’s Verified
10
Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem [Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. No. 1-
11
1], is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A)
12
and (C).
13
C.
known
The
as
The
Government
Viceroy
gave
L’Ermitage
and
Beverly
published
Hills
notice
of
(the
the
14
L’Ermitage Actions as required by law, including Supplemental
15
Rule G
16
Actions, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules
17
of this Court.
18
D.
for
Admiralty
or
Maritime
Claims
and
Asset
Forfeiture
On November 7, 2016 and October 11, 2017, VHG Beverly
19
Hills LLC ("VHG") filed claims to the Defendant Assets. [Case
20
No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. Nos. 35 and 130; Case No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt.
21
Nos. 37 and 131].
22
E.
On March 24, 2017 and October 11, 2017, LBH Real Estate
23
(Beverly Hills) LLC (“LBH Real Estate”), JW Hospitality Ltd. (“VHG
24
INTL”), and JW Hospitality LLC (collectively and together with VHG,
25
“Claimants”) filed claims to the Business Assets. [Case No. 16-cv-
26
05369, Dkt. Nos. 102 and 130]. On those same dates, LBH Real Estate
27
also filed claims to the Property. [Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt.
28
Nos. 101 and 129].
-2-
1
F.
On November 8, 2019, the Court entered a Consent Judgment
2
of Forfeiture in each of the L’Ermitage Actions as to all Claimants
3
other than VHG (Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. No. 152; Case No. 16-
4
cv-05369, Dkt. No. 153) (collectively, the “Consent Judgments”),
5
pursuant to which all Claimants other than VHG renounced any claims
6
to the Defendant Assets and any substitute res, and allowed any
7
interests they held therein to be forfeited to the Government.
8
9
G.
On April 30, 2020, the Government and VHG, as the only
remaining
parties
in
the
L'Ermitage
Actions,
filed
a
Joint
10
Stipulation and Request for Order Authorizing Interlocutory Sale
11
of
12
(collectively, the “Interlocutory Sale Stipulations”). (Case No.
13
16-cv-05368, Dkt. No. 156; Case No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt. No. 157).
14
the
H.
Defendant
Assets
in
each
of
the
L’Ermitage
Actions
On May 1, 2020, the Court entered orders in each of the
15
L’Ermitage Actions: (i) finding that the Defendant Assets should
16
be sold via an interlocutory sale, with the proceeds of such sale
17
substituted as the defendant res in each action; and (ii) finding
18
that the procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2002, which
19
statutes govern interlocutory sales of property pending forfeiture,
20
were not reasonable, appropriate or likely to yield the highest
21
price for the Defendant Assets. (Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. No.
22
157; Case No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt. No. 158).
23
I.
On May 5, 2020, claimant VHG withdrew all of its claims
24
to the Defendant Assets.
25
No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt. No. 159).
26
J.
(Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. No. 158; Case
On May 5, 2020, the Court entered orders in each of the
27
L’Ermitage Actions appointing the Special Master to market and sell
28
the Defendant Assets, and approving proposed bidding and sale
-3-
1
procedures for the Special Master to sell the Defendant Assets
2
(collectively, the “Sale Procedures”).(Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt.
3
No. 160; Case No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt. No. 161).
4
K.
On August 31, 2020, the Court entered orders in each of
5
the L’Ermitage Actions (collectively, the “Final Interlocutory Sale
6
Orders”): (i) approving the Sale of the Defendant Assets to LBVH
7
Hotel LLC (the “Purchaser”) pursuant to the terms of set forth in
8
that certain Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Hotel and Joint
9
Escrow Instructions (the “Stalking Horse PSA”) for a purchase price
10
of $100,000,000.00, plus or minus prorations and adjustments as
11
set forth in the Stalking Horse PSA (the “Substitute Res”);(ii)
12
approving the Sale of the Defendant Assets free and clear of all
13
liens,
14
limitation and at the option of the Stalking Horse Bidder, the
15
Management Agreement (as that term is defined in the Stalking Horse
16
PSA); (iii) authorizing the Government to consummate the Sale of
17
the Defendant Assets and transactions contemplated by the Stalking
18
Horse
19
accordance with the Sale Procedures. (Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt.
20
No. 166; Case No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt. No. 165).
21
claims,
PSA;
L.
and
encumbrances
(iv)
finding
and
interests,
that
the
Sale
including,
was
without
conducted
in
Based upon the Final Interlocutory Sale Orders, the
22
Government is currently holding the Substitute Res less any Sale-
23
related
24
Interlocutory Sale Orders (the “Remaining Substitute Res”) in the
25
United States Marshal Service’s Seized Asset Deposit Fund (the
26
“SADF”) pending the conclusion of the L’Ermitage Actions.
27
28
M.
costs
paid
pursuant
to
paragraphs
7-8
of
the
Final
Since the closing of the Sale, the Movants and the
Purchaser have worked together to pay or otherwise satisfy all
-4-
1
valid claims against the Remaining Substitute Res not filed in this
2
action or otherwise payable by the Purchaser in accordance with
3
the procedures approved by the Court.
4
N.
No other claims to the Defendant Assets or Substitute
5
Res were filed and the time for filing claims has expired.
6
of the Claimants’ claims have been fully resolved.
7
O.
No
party
has
objected
to
the
Application,
Each
the
8
disbursement of the Remaining Substitute Res, or the closure and
9
conclusion of the L’Ermitage Actions.
10
P.
The Court finds, based upon the Application and the
11
record of these proceedings, the Movants have demonstrated good
12
cause to grant the Application and approve the relief sought
13
therein.
14
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
15
1.
The Application is granted.
16
2.
All rights, titles, and interests of Claimants and all
17
other potential claimants in and/or to the Substitute Res and
18
Remaining Substitute Res are hereby forfeited to the Government
19
pursuant
20
Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset
21
Forfeiture
22
Procedure, and the applicable Local Rules of this Court.
23
3.
to
18
U.S.C.
Actions,
§ 981(a)(1)(A)
the
applicable
and
(C),
Federal
the
applicable
Rules
of
Civil
The United States Marshals Service shall dispose of the
24
Remaining Substitute Res in accordance with applicable law, less
25
any fees and costs unpaid related to the Sale.
26
4.
If any or all of the provisions of this Final Judgment
27
of Forfeiture are hereafter reversed, modified or vacated by a
28
subsequent order and/or judgment of this Court or any other court,
-5-
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?