Yufa v. TSI Incorporated

Filing 262

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 253 Ex Parte Application ; ORDER granting 255 Motion to approve instructions for administration of receiver; ORDER denying as moot 261 Ex Parte Application to expedite the court decision re 255 , 261 . (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 4:09-cv-01315-KAW
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX
PARTE APPLICATION; ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
TO APPROVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF RECEIVER;
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXPEDITE AS MOOT

v.
TSI INCORPORATED,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 253, 255, 261

12
13
14
15

EX PARTE APPLICATION
On March 9, 2017, Plaintiff Aleksandr L. Yufa filed an ex parte application requesting an

16

order directing Defendant TSI Incorporated to file its forthcoming motion to compel the

17

assignment of patents to the appointed receiver by a certain deadline. (Dkt. No. 253.) TSI

18

opposed the ex parte application on the grounds that “Dr. Yufa has no right to dictate when or how

19

the judgment against him must be satisfied.” (Dkt. No. 254 at 2.) Indeed, judgment creditors have

20

10 years after the entry of judgment to enforce the judgment. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 683.020.

21

There is no requirement that the judgment creditor act as quickly as possible. Accordingly,

22

Plaintiff’s ex parte application is DENIED.

23
24

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO APPROVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF RECEIVER

25

On March 23, 2017, TSI filed a motion to approve the instructions for the administration of

26

the court-appointed receiver Greyhound IP LLC (“Greyhound”). (Dkt. No. 256.) TSI requests that

27

Greyhound be required to provide only one report, a final declaration or report, with the Court at

28

the conclusion of its valuation. Id. at 2. Additionally, TSI requests that the Court order that

1

Greyhound is entitled to be paid directly by TSI, without prior Court approval, at the rate of

2

$400.00 per hour, and that any sums paid by TSI shall be added to the judgment after Greyhound

3

has provided its final valuation of each patent. Id. at 2-3.

4

Dr. Yufa opposed this motion on the grounds that he did not believe that it was fair that the

5

receiver’s fee be added to the judgment. (Dkt. No. 258.) Under California law, the receiver is

6

allowed to recover “the cost of the undertaking.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 567(b). Here, TSI has

7

negotiated that Greyhound’s maximum cost is limited to $40,000.00, which includes the valuation

8

and, if approved by the Court, the marketing and sale of the Receivership Property. (Def.’s Reply,

9

Dkt. No. 259; Decl. of Courtland Merrill, Dkt. No. 260 ¶ 3, Ex. A.) TSI’s request to pay
Greyhound upfront was to assuage Greyhound’s concern that it would not receive payment should

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the judgment not be paid in full. (See Def.’s Reply at 2.) The Court finds that this concern is

12

legitimate given the uncertainty of the value of the patents and Dr. Yufa’s limited means to

13

otherwise satisfy the judgment.

14

In light of the foregoing, TSI’s motion is GRANTED, and IT IS ORDERED that:

15

1. Greyhound, or its acquirer, Houlihan Lokey, with offices at One Sansome Street, Suite

16

1700, San Francisco, CA 94104 shall swear to perform the duties of receiver faithfully pursuant to

17

California Code of Civil Procedure § 567.

18

2. Greyhound shall have all of the powers and authority usually held by receivers and

19

reasonably necessary to value the Receivership Property unless otherwise stated, without further

20

order of the Court.

21
22
23

3. Greyhound shall have the right to apply to this Court for further instructions or
directions.
4. Greyhound shall be entitled to be paid without prior Court approval, at the rate of

24

$400.00 per hour, not to exceed $40,000.00. Greyhound’s compensation for valuing the

25

Receivership Property shall be paid directly by the Defendant. Upon approval of the Court, any

26

sums paid by Defendant to Greyhound shall be added to the judgment after Greyhound has

27

provided its final declaration or report to the Court regarding the value of the Receivership

28

Property.
2

1

5. Plaintiff, as well as his agents or representatives, shall cooperate with all requests of

2

Greyhound and are enjoined from interfering with Greyhound’s performance of its duties

3

hereunder.

4

6. Greyhound shall faithfully perform and discharge its duties and obey the Court’s orders.

5

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to expedite the decision on these motions (Dkt.

6

No. 261) is denied as moot.

7

Dated: June 22, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3