united states bankruptcy court central district of...

United States Bankruptcy CourtCentral District of California

Judge Ernest Robles, PresidingCourtroom 1568 Calendar

Los Angeles

Monday, November 26, 2018 1568 Hearing Room

9:00 AMJoven C Cabasag2:16-24224 Chapter 7

Gano Excel USA, Inc. v. Cabasag et alAdv#: 2:17-01034

#1.00 TrialRE: [1] Adversary case 2:17-ap-01034. Complaint by Gano Excel USA, Inc. against Joven C Cabasag, Ma Carmelita Cabrera. (d),(e))),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)),(62 (Dischargeability -523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) (Wellman, Scott)

fr. 2-21-18; 10-29-18

1Docket

11/22/2018:

Hearing required.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joven C Cabasag Represented ByDavid S Hagen

Defendant(s):

Joven C Cabasag Represented ByDavid S Hagen

Ma Carmelita Cabrera Represented ByDavid S Hagen

Joint Debtor(s):

Ma Carmelita Cabrera Represented ByDavid S Hagen

Plaintiff(s):

Gano Excel USA, Inc. Represented ByScott W Wellman

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMJoven C CabasagCONT... Chapter 7

Trustee(s):

Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Pro Se

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMTimothy M Rosen2:16-24731 Chapter 7

Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Lancaster Baptist ChurchAdv#: 2:17-01491

#2.00 Trial Date SetRE: [48] Amended Complaint / First Amended Complaint (originally filed as Ex. 1 to Doc. No. 34; pursuant to Doc. No. 47, deemed to be filed on June 26, 2018) by Eric P Israel on behalf of Brad D. Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee against Lancaster Baptist Church . (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 2:17-ap-01491. Complaint by Brad D. Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee against Lancaster Baptist Church. (Charge To Estate). Trustees Complaint For Avoidance And Recovery Of Transfers Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)

fr. 11-26-18

48Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED 1-28-19 AT 9:00 A.M.

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Timothy M Rosen Represented ByEliza Ghanooni

Defendant(s):

Lancaster Baptist Church Represented BySteven R FoxDavid C Gibbs Jr

Joint Debtor(s):

Victoria S Rosen Represented ByEliza Ghanooni

Plaintiff(s):

Brad D. Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMTimothy M RosenCONT... Chapter 7

Sonia SinghEric P IsraelGeorge E Schulman

Trustee(s):

Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Represented ByEric P IsraelSonia Singh

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMTimothy M Rosen2:16-24731 Chapter 7

Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Lancaster Baptist ChurchAdv#: 2:17-01491

#3.00 Trial Date SetRE: [1] Adversary case 2:17-ap-01491. Complaint by Brad D. Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee against Lancaster Baptist Church. (Charge To Estate). Trustees Complaint For Avoidance And Recovery Of Transfers Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Singh, Sonia)

FR. 7-30-18; 9-24-18

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED 6-26-18

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Timothy M Rosen Represented ByEliza Ghanooni

Defendant(s):

Lancaster Baptist Church Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Victoria S Rosen Represented ByEliza Ghanooni

Plaintiff(s):

Brad D. Krasnoff, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented BySonia SinghEric P Israel

Trustee(s):

Brad D Krasnoff (TR) Represented ByEric P Israel

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMTimothy M RosenCONT... Chapter 7

Sonia Singh

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMChristopher Kim Kay2:17-10897 Chapter 7

Rund v. HakobyanAdv#: 2:17-01567

#4.00 Trial Date SetRE: [1] Adversary case 2:17-ap-01567. Complaint by Jason M. Rund against Arsine Hakobyan. (Charge To Estate). Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Casey, Thomas)

FR. 9-24-18

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: DISMISSED 7-13-18

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Christopher Kim Kay Represented BySanaz S Bereliani

Defendant(s):

Arsine Hakobyan Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Jason M. Rund Represented ByThomas H Casey

Trustee(s):

Jason M Rund (TR) Represented ByThomas H Casey

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMChristopher Kim Kay2:17-10897 Chapter 7

Rund v. ZhangAdv#: 2:17-01569

#5.00 Trial Date SetRE: [1] Adversary case 2:17-ap-01569. Complaint by Jason M. Rund against Lucy Zhang. (Charge To Estate). Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Casey, Thomas)

FR. 9-24-18


- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Christopher Kim Kay Represented BySanaz S Bereliani

Defendant(s):

Lucy Zhang Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Jason M. Rund Represented ByThomas H Casey

Trustee(s):

Jason M Rund (TR) Represented ByThomas H Casey

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMFelicidad Ferrer2:17-13256 Chapter 7

Thekkek et al v. Ferrer et alAdv#: 2:17-01334

#6.00 Trial Date SetRE: [1] Adversary case 2:17-ap-01334. Complaint by Prema Thekkek, Antony Thekkek against Felicidad Ferrer, Renato Ferrer. (a)(4), and (a)(6)]; and (III) for Denial of Discharge [11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A), and (a)(7)] (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)),(41 (Objection / revocation of discharge -727(c),(d),(e))) (Rafatjoo, Hamid)

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: PER ORDER ENTERED 10-26-18

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Felicidad Ferrer Represented ByJoshua R Engle

Defendant(s):

Felicidad Ferrer Represented ByJoshua R Engle

Renato Ferrer Represented ByJoshua R Engle

Joint Debtor(s):

Renato Ferrer Represented ByJoshua R Engle

Plaintiff(s):

Prema Thekkek Represented ByHamid R Rafatjoo

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMFelicidad FerrerCONT... Chapter 7

Antony Thekkek Represented ByHamid R Rafatjoo

Trustee(s):

Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented ByVarand Gourjian

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMPaul William Martin2:17-16996 Chapter 7

Hunter v. Martin DBA Veronica Rose Productions, IncAdv#: 2:17-01587

#7.00 Trial Date SetRE: [1] Adversary case 2:17-ap-01587. Complaint by Kevin Hunter against Paul William Martin. (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Brock, Robert)

fr. 9-24-18

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Cont'd to 1/28/2019 at 9:00 a.m.

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Paul William Martin Represented ByMatthew D Resnik

Defendant(s):

Paul William Martin DBA Veronica Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Kevin Hunter Represented ByRobert A Brock

Trustee(s):

Elissa Miller (TR) Pro Se

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMJihee Byun2:17-22344 Chapter 7

Travelers Express Company, Inc nka Moneygram Payme v. ByunAdv#: 2:18-01010

#8.00 Trial Date SetRE: [1] Adversary case 2:18-ap-01010. Complaint by Travelers Express Company, Inc. against Jihee Byun. (d),(e))),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Rentto, Robert)

fr: 9-24-18


- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jihee Byun Represented ByKelly K Chang

Defendant(s):

Jihee Byun Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Travelers Express Company, Inc nka Represented ByRobert L Rentto

Trustee(s):

Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMYoungjae Byun2:17-22345 Chapter 7

Travelers Express Company, Inc nka Moneygram Payme v. Youngjae Byun Adv#: 2:18-01011

#9.00 Trial Date SetRE: [1] Adversary case 2:18-ap-01011. Complaint by Travelers Express Company, Inc. against Youngjae Byun. (d),(e))),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Rentto, Robert)

fr: 9-24-18


- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Youngjae Byun Represented ByKelly K Chang

Defendant(s):

Youngjae Byun aka Young Jae Byun Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Travelers Express Company, Inc nka Represented ByRobert L Rentto

Trustee(s):

Jason M Rund (TR) Pro Se

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMMargaret Tully Imhoff2:17-23038 Chapter 7

Imhoff v. Navient Solutions, LLC. et alAdv#: 2:18-01029

#10.00 Trial Date SetRE: [1] Adversary case 2:18-ap-01029. Complaint by Margaret Tully Imhoff against Navient Solutions, LLC. . (Fee Not Required). Nature of Suit: (63 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(8), student loan)) (Fierro, Viridiana)


- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Margaret Tully Imhoff Represented ByJohn Asuncion

Defendant(s):

United States Department Of Pro Se

Navient Solutions, LLC. Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Margaret Tully Imhoff Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Timothy Yoo (TR) Pro Se

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMAbram Tavera2:10-12765 Chapter 11

Mastan v. Tavera et alAdv#: 2:16-01555

#11.00 TrialRE: [1] Adversary case 2:16-ap-01555. Complaint by Peter J Mastan against Abram Tavera, Ruth Tavera. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Breach of Contract and Declaratory Judgment Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)) (Ekvall, Lei Lei)

fr. 2-21-2018; 5-15-18


5/14/2018

Plaintiff commenced this action on December 15, 2016. On January 3, 2018, this action was reassigned from the Hon. Deborah J. Saltzman to the undersigned Judge. The Court set a Status Conference for February 21, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. On February 7, 2018, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to continue the Status Conference to May 15, 2018. The parties represented that they were engaged in settlement negotiations and stated that they needed additional time to see if they could reach a settlement agreement.

On May 2, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule 7016-1 Re: Status Conference [Doc. No. 28] (the "Order to Comply"), based upon the parties’ failure to timely file a Joint Status Report as ordered by the Court. In response to the Order to Comply, the parties filed a Joint Status Report, as well as a stipulation seeking a further continuance of the Status Conference. See Doc. No. 30 (the "Stipulation"). In the Stipulation, the parties again represented that they were continuing to discuss settlement and need additional time to see if they can reach an agreement.

On May 7, 2018, the Court entered an Order Disapproving Stipulation for Further Continuance of Status Conference [Doc. No. 32]. The Court explained:

The parties have failed to establish that they are making significant progress toward settlement. Absent such a showing, a further continuance of the Status Conference will result only in additional delay. The Court is obligated to

Tentative Ruling:

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMAbram TaveraCONT... Chapter 11ensure the speedy determination of every action.

In the Court’s experience, settlements are most likely to be achieved against the backdrop of litigation deadlines. Therefore, having reviewed the Joint Status Report filed by the parties, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1) The following dates shall apply to this action:a) The last day to amend pleadings and/or join other parties is 6/14/2018.b) The last day to disclose expert witnesses and expert witness reports is

8/28/2018.c) The last day to disclose rebuttal expert witnesses and rebuttal expert

witness reports is 9/27/2018.d) The last date to complete discovery relating to expert witnesses (e.g.,

depositions of expert witnesses), including hearings on motions related to expert discovery, is 10/16/2018. (For contemplated hearings on motions related to expert discovery, it is counsel’s responsibility to check the Judge’s self-calendaring dates, posted on the Court’s website. If the expert discovery cutoff date falls on a date when the court is closed or that is not available for self-calendaring, the deadline for hearings on expert discovery motions is the next closest date which is available for self-calendaring.)

e) The last day for dispositive motions to be heard is 10/23/2018. (If the motion cutoff date is not available for self-calendaring, the deadline for dispositive motions to be heard is the next closest date which is available for self-calendaring.)

f) The last day to complete discovery (except as to experts), including hearings on discovery motions, is 10/27/2018. (If the non-expert discovery cutoff date is not available for self-calendaring, the deadline for non-expert discovery motions to be heard is the next closest date which is available for self-calendaring.)

g) A Pretrial Conference is set for 11/13/2018 at 11:00 a.m. By no later than fourteen days prior to the Pretrial Conference, the parties must submit a Joint Pretrial Stipulation via the Court’s Lodged Order Upload (LOU) system. Submission via LOU allows the Court to edit the Joint Pretrial Stipulation, if necessary. Parties should consult the Court Manual, section 4, for information about LOU.

h) Trial is set for the week of 11/26/2018. The trial day commences at 9:00

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMAbram TaveraCONT... Chapter 11

a.m. The exact date of the trial will be set at the Pretrial Conference. Consult the Court’s website for the Judge’s requirements regarding exhibit binders and trial briefs.

2) The matter shall be referred to the Mediation Panel. The parties shall meet and confer and select a Mediator from this District's Mediation Panel. Plaintiff will lodge a completed "Request for Assignment to Mediation Program; [Proposed] Order Thereon" (See Amended General Order 95-01 available on the Court’s website) within 15 days from the date of this hearing, and deliver a hard copy directly to chambers c/o the judge’s law clerk Daniel Koontz.

The Court will enter a Scheduling Order. Plaintiff shall submit the order assigning this matter to mediation within fifteen days of the hearing, as set forth in ¶2, above.

No appearance is required if submitting on the court’s tentative ruling. If you intend to submit on the tentative ruling, please contact Cameron Schlagel or Daniel Koontz at 213-894-1522. If you intend to contest the tentative ruling and appear, please first contact opposing counsel to inform them of your intention to do so.Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required. If you wish to make a telephonic appearance, contact Court Call at 888-882-6878, no later than one hour before the hearing.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Abram Tavera Represented ByRobert M YaspanDavid J Richardson

Defendant(s):

Ruth Tavera Represented ByRobert M Yaspan

Abram Tavera Represented ByRobert M Yaspan

Joint Debtor(s):

Ruth Tavera Represented By

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMAbram TaveraCONT... Chapter 11

Robert M Yaspan

Plaintiff(s):

Peter J Mastan Represented ByLei Lei Wang Ekvall

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMRavinder Kumar Bhatia2:14-31703 Chapter 11

Bhatia et al v. Ramirez et alAdv#: 2:17-01536

#12.00 Trial Date SetRE: [1] Adversary case 2:17-ap-01536. Complaint by Ravinder Kumar Bhatia, Johanna Arias Bhatia against Fidel Ramirez. (Fee Not Required). Nature of Suit: (21 (Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property)),(02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy))) (Orantes, Giovanni)

fr: 8-27-18

1Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED 3-25-19 AT 9:00 A.M.

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ravinder Kumar Bhatia Represented ByGiovanni Orantes

Defendant(s):

Fidel Ramirez Pro Se

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Johanna Arias Bhatia Represented ByGiovanni Orantes

Plaintiff(s):

Johanna Arias Bhatia Represented ByGiovanni Orantes

Ravinder Kumar Bhatia Represented ByGiovanni Orantes

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


9:00 AMLiberty Asset Management Corporation2:16-13575 Chapter 11

Official Unsecured Creditors Committee for Liberty v. Tsang et alAdv#: 2:17-01525

#13.00 Trial Date SetRE: [1] Adversary case 2:17-ap-01525. Complaint by Official Unsecured Creditors Committee for Liberty Asset Management Corporation against Steven Tsang, Cathy Tsang, ELSV LLC. (14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Greenwood, Gail)

fr. 8-27-18


- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Liberty Asset Management Represented ByDavid B GolubchikJeffrey S KwongJohn-Patrick M FritzEve H KarasikSandford L. Frey

Defendant(s):

Steven Tsang Pro Se

Cathy Tsang Pro Se

ELSV LLC Pro Se

David Tsang Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Official Unsecured Creditors Represented ByGail S Greenwood

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


10:00 AMArto Atmadjian2:16-12145 Chapter 11

#100.00 HearingRE: [187] Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Fiat 500X .

187Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12-17-18 at 10:00 A.M.

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Arto Atmadjian Represented ByKristine Theodesia TakvoryanOvsanna Takvoryan

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


10:00 AMVerity Health System of California, Inc.2:18-20151 Chapter 11

#101.00 HearingRE: [717] Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Medical Negligence. (Danielyan, Mariam)

717Docket

11/22/2018:

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED.

Pleadings Filed and Reviewed:1) Notice of Motion and Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C.

§362 [Doc. No. 717] (the "Motion") 2) Debtors’ Response to Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Filed on Behalf

of Aida Iniguez and Francisco Iniguez [Doc. No. 811] 3) Reply of Movants Aida Iniguez and Francisco Iniguez to Debtors’ Response to

Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay [Doc. No. 843] (the "Reply")

I. Facts and Summary of PleadingsOn August 31, 2018 (the “Petition Date”), Verity Health Systems of California

(“VHS”) and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On August 31, 2018, the Court entered an order granting the Debtors’ motion for joint administration of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases. Doc. No. 17.

Aida Iniguez and Francisco Iniguez (“Movants”) seek stay-relief, pursuant to §362(d)(1), for the purpose of litigating a medical malpractice action against Debtor St. Francis Medical Center (“St. Francis”). Movants commenced the action, captioned Aida Iniguez et al. v. Domingo C. Barrientos, St. Francis Medical Center, et al. (the “State Court Action”), on May 4, 2016. The State Court Action alleges that had St. Francis and its doctors properly diagnosed Movant Aida Iniguez, it would not have been necessary for Ms. Iniguez to have undergone the amputation of both her legs.

A status conference in the State Court Action is set for December 12, 2018. Prior to the commencement of the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases, trial in the State Court Action

Tentative Ruling:

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


10:00 AMVerity Health System of California, Inc.CONT... Chapter 11

was set for October 9, 2018. Movants seek recovery only from applicable insurance, and waive any deficiency or other claim against the estate.

Debtors oppose the Motion, arguing that being required to defend against the State Court Action would be disruptive to the Debtors’ operations and would distract the Debtors from aggressively pursuing sales of the Debtors’ hospitals.

Movant makes the following arguments in reply to the Debtors’ opposition:1) There is no merit to the contention that Debtors would be distracted from

prosecuting the bankruptcy cases if the State Court Action proceeded. St. Francis is represented by insurance counsel and Movants seek recovery only from applicable insurance. Insurance counsel has been defending against the State Court Action for more than two years.

2) Debtors have taken inconsistent and contradictory positions in response to similar stay-relief motions. In another non-bankruptcy action also involving a tort claims against St. Francis, Debtors stated that they would consider stipulating to stay-relief if Movant sought recovery only from insurance. Here, Movants seek recovery only from insurance, yet Debtors oppose the Motion.

II. Findings and ConclusionsAs explained by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in Kronemyer v.

American Contractors Indemnity Co. (In re Kronemyer) (internal citations omitted): "What constitutes ‘cause’ for granting relief from the automatic stay is decided on a case-by-case basis. Among factors appropriate to consider in determining whether relief from the automatic stay should be granted to allow state court proceedings to continue are considerations of judicial economy and the expertise of the state court, … as well as prejudice to the parties and whether exclusively bankruptcy issues are involved." 405 B.R. 915, 921. The factors articulated in In re Curtis, 40 B.R. 795, 799-800 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984) and adopted by the bankruptcy court in Truebro, Inc. v. Plumberex Specialty Prods., Inc. (In re Plumberex Specialty Prods., Inc), 311 B.R. 551, 559-60 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2004) are also "appropriate, nonexclusive factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending litigation to continue in another forum." Kronemyer, 405 B.R. at 921. The Curtis factors are as follows:

1) Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;2) The lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles



3) Whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary;4) Whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause

of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases;5) Whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial

responsibility for defending the litigation;6) Whether the action essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions

only as a bailee or conduit for the goods or proceeds in question;7) Whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other

creditors, the creditors’ committee and other interested parties;8) Whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to

equitable subordination under Section 510(c);9) Whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial

lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f);10) The interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical

determination of litigation for the parties;11) Whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the

parties are prepared for trial, and12) The impact of the stay on the parties and the "balance of hurt."

Plumberex, 311 B.R. at 599.Having considered the applicable Curtis factors, the Court finds that immediate

stay-relief is appropriate. The Court’s conclusion is driven primarily by the fact that Movants seek recovery only from applicable insurance and waive any deficiency or other claim against the Debtors or property of the estates (the fifth Curtis factor). The Court is cognizant of the reality that Debtors’ bankruptcy counsel and its professionals may be required to devote some attention to the litigation, even though it is being defended by insurance counsel. However, having reviewed the the State Court Complaint, the Court finds that allowing the State Court Action to go forward at this time will not unduly distract the Debtors from pursuing other pressing matters in these bankruptcy cases. Requiring Movants to wait for stay-relief until the Debtors have made further progress selling the hospitals would mean that the trial, initially scheduled to go forward in October 2018, would likely be delayed until March 2019 or even later. In view of Movants’ agreement to limit recovery to applicable insurance, the “balance of hurt” (factor twelve) warrants granting stay-relief now.

The remaining Curtis factors likewise support immediate stay-relief. Allowing the State Court Action to proceed will result in a complete resolution of the issues (factor

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles



one). The State Court is the tribunal best suited to adjudicate the litigation (factor three). The parties are at an advanced stage of the litigation (factor eleven). Stay-relief will facilitate the expeditious determination of the State Court Action (factor ten). Finally, given the Court’s finding that allowing the State Court Action to proceed will not unduly distract the Debtors from other pressing matters, stay-relief will not prejudice the interests of creditors by interfering with the case and reducing creditor recoveries (factor seven).

Movants’ request that the order granting stay-relief be binding and effective in any bankruptcy case commenced by or against the Debtors for a period of 180 days is DENIED. So that the status conference set for December 12, 2018 in the State Court Action may proceed, the order granting stay-relief shall be effective immediately upon entry, notwithstanding Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a)(3). Movants are permitted to enforce any final judgment only by collecting upon available insurance in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law. Movants may not pursue any deficiency claim or any other claim against the Debtors or property of the estates. The stay shall remain in effect with respect to the enforcement of any judgment against the Debtors or property of the Debtors’ estates.

Movants shall submit a conforming order, incorporating this tentative ruling by reference, within seven days of the hearing. [Note 1]

No appearance is required if submitting on the court’s tentative ruling. If you intend to submit on the tentative ruling, please contact Jessica Vogel or Daniel Koontz at 213-894-1522. If you intend to contest the tentative ruling and appear, please first contact opposing counsel to inform them of your intention to do so. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required. If you wish to make a telephonic appearance, contact Court Call at 888-882-6878, no later than one hour before the hearing.

Note 1To ensure that the Debtors have the opportunity to review Movants’ proposed

order as to form, Movants shall either (a) submit a Notice of Lodgment of the proposed order in accordance with the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9021-1(b)(3)(A) or, in the alternative, shall (b) obtain Debtors’ endorsement as to the form of the proposed order pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9021-1(b)(3)(C).

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles



Party Information

Debtor(s):

Verity Health System of California, Represented BySamuel R MaizelJohn A Moe IITania M MoyronClaude D MontgomerySam J Alberts

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


10:00 AMUnited International Mortgage Solutions, Inc.2:18-20698 Chapter 11

#102.00 HearingRE: [26] Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1258 North Virgil Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90029 . , creditor c/o Seterus, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice) (Ryan, Timothy) WARNING: Matter is not on calendar for 11-29-18 at 10:00 A.M. See docket entry #[27] for corrective action; Modified on 10/31/2018 (Evangelista, Maria).

26Docket

11/22/2018:

The Motion is CONTINUED to December 17, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. for proper notice. The Motion was not served on all lienholders in a manner authorized by Fed. R. Bankr. P. ("FRBP") 7004 or on the 20 largest creditors as required by FRBP 4001(a)(1) and 1007(d). The Movant is directed to re-serve the Motion and a notice of continued hearing upon all lienholders in a manner authorized by FRBP 7004 and on the 20 largest creditors by November 26, 2018 and to file a proof of service reflecting service in accordance with this ruling.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

United International Mortgage Represented ByMatthew D. ResnikRoksana D. Moradi-Brovia

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


10:00 AMAndrew's & Son Tradings Inc.2:18-18022 Chapter 11

#103.00 HearingRE: [66] Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: (2011 FORD F-650 Vin 3FRNF6FC1BV052582) with Proof of Service. (Barasch, Adam)


- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Andrew's & Son Tradings Inc. Represented ByChristopher J LangleySteven P ChangDavid Samuel Shevitz

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


10:00 AMF.A.S.S.T. LLC2:18-21828 Chapter 11

#104.00 HearingRE: [52] Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: Fitness equipment per the attached invoices .

52Docket

11/22/2018:

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED, provided the Debtor makes monthly adequate protection payments of $815.85.

Pleadings Filed and Reviewed:1) Notice of Motion and Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C.

§ 362 (Personal Property) [Doc. No. 52] (the "Motion") 2) Debtor’s Opposition to Motion for Relief from Stay Filed by CIT Bank N.A.

[Doc. No. 60] (the "Opposition")3) CIT Bank, N.A.’s Reply to Debtor’s Opposition to Notice of Motion and Motion

for Relief from Automatic Stay [Doc. No. 64] (the "Reply")

I. Facts and Summary of PleadingsDebtor and Debtor-in-possession, F.A.S.S.T., LLC (the "Debtor") filed a voluntary

chapter 11 petition on October 9, 2018 (the "Petition Date"). The Debtor owns and operates a public training facility/gymnasium that does business under the name Velocity Sports Club.

Summary of the MotionCIT Bank, N.A. ("Movant") seeks relief from the automatic stay with respect to

certain fitness equipment identified in invoices attached to the Motion (the "Property") pursuant to §§ 362(d)(1) and (d)(2). Movant states that it holds a security interest in the Property pursuant to a security agreement (Ex. 1) and UCC-1 financing statement (Ex. 3). Movant asserts that cause exists to grant it relief from the automatic stay because (i) postpetition arrears are $815.85; (ii) Movant’s interest is not adequately protected by an equity cushion because Movant’s $26,562.58 claim is equal to the fair

Tentative Ruling:

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles


10:00 AMF.A.S.S.T. LLCCONT... Chapter 11

market value of the Property; and (iii) proof of insurance has not been provided to Movant.

Movant asserts that the Property is worth $26,562.58. In support of its claimed valuation, Movant submits a declaration by Brian Knox, who is employed by the Movant as a Senior Legal Recovery Specialist. Mr. Knox testifies that the $26,562.58 valuation was determined as follows:

Movant has an Asset Management group that routinely re-markets equipment of the make, model, and year at issue herein in this industry. Movant’s Asset Management group bases its valuation of the equipment on its original price, age and forecast of current market values, its conversations with outside vendors and experience in equipment financing and leasing.

Declaration of Brian Knox ("Knox Declaration"), ¶ 10(d).

Summary of the Debtor’s OppositionDebtor opposes the Motion on the grounds that Movant has failed to provide any

admissible evidence in support of the Property’s fair market value and, as a result, failed to carry its burden of proof to establish a lack of equity under §§ 362(d)(1) or (d)(2). With respect to § 362(d)(1), Debtor asserts that the only evidence presented is inadmissible because Movant’s custodian of records, Mr. Knox, is unqualified to testify regarding the Property’s value. Debtor also asserts that Movant has not presented any evidence to establish that its interest is not adequately protected or that the Property is declining in value. Debtor intends to bring its own separate motion to determine the value of Movant’s security interest in the collateral and to request to strip down Movant’s interest to that value.

With respect to the relief requested under § 362(d)(2), Debtor contends that in addition to its failure to submit admissible evidence regarding Debtor’s lack of equity in the Property, Movant has failed to demonstrate that the gym equipment is not necessary for the Debtor’s effective reorganization.

Debtor also states that Movant has not introduced any evidence to support its contentions regarding the Debtor’s insurance coverage. Debtor attaches a copy of its existing insurance policy to the Declaration of Charles Debus as Exhibit A.

Finally, Debtor states that notwithstanding Movant’s failure to carry its burden of proof, the Debtor is willing to make adequate protection payments in the amount of the monthly payment due under the note ($815.85) for the period of time it takes the

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles



Debtor to determine the value of Movant’s security, its allowed claim, and other related issues or until Debtor’s plan is confirmed, whichever is earlier. However, Debtor is willing to make the proposed adequate protection payments only if any overpayments are subject to disgorgement once the value of the Property has been adjudicated.

Summary of Movant’s Reply in Support of the MotionMovant asserts that the Debtor has failed to establish that the Property is insured

as required by the Master Equipment Finance Agreement between Debtor and Movant. According to Movant, the insurance policy produced by the Debtor is inadequate because it does not name either Movant or the Office of the United States Trustee as additional insured parties. Movant disputes Debtors’ contention that Mr. Knox is not qualified to testify as to the Property’s value. Movant states that Debtors’ proposal to make adequate protection payments only if such payments are subject to disgorgement is nonsensical because adequate protection payments cannot, by definition, be subject to disgorgement.

II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of LawMr. Knox is Qualified to Testify as to the Value of the Property

The Debtor’s objection to Mr. Knox’s testimony in support of the Property’s valuation is OVERRULED. Mr. Knox is employed by Movant as a Senior Legal Recovery Specialist. In the course of his job duties, Mr. Knox is required to assess the value of collateral. As such, he is qualified to offer expert valuation testimony. See Federal Rule of Evidence ("FRE") 702 (providing that an expert may be qualified by "experience"); see also Stanziale v. Southern Steel & Supply, LLC (In re Conex Holdings, LLC, 518 B.R. 269, 286 (Bankr. D. Del. 2014) (stating that witnesses who have worked in the industry at issue "may be prime candidates for providing relevant testimony").

Mr. Knox explains that he arrived at his conclusions regarding the Property’s value by consulting with Movant’s Asset Management Group, which routinely markets equipment similar to the Property. As an expert qualified to offer valuation testimony, Mr. Knox is entitled to rely upon the conclusions of the Asset Management Group in forming his opinion.

Section 362(d)(1)Under § 362(d)(1), the court shall grant relief "for cause, including the lack of

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles



adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest." Generally, what constitutes cause for purposes of § 362(d) "has no clear definition and is determined on a case-by-case basis." In re Tucson Estates, Inc., 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Little Creek Dev. Co. v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. (In the Matter of Little Creek Dev. Co.), 779 F.2d 1068, 1072 (5th Cir. 1986) (relief from the automatic stay may "be granted ‘for cause,’ a term not defined in the statute so as to afford flexibility to the bankruptcy courts"). However, cause under § 362(d)(1) expressly includes a lack of adequate protection. Section 361 sets forth three non-exclusive examples of what may constitute adequate protection: (1) periodic cash payments equivalent to decrease in value; (2) an additional or replacement lien on other property; or (3) other relief that provides the indubitable equivalent. See In re Mellor, 734 F.2d 1396, 1400 (9th Cir. 1984). The Ninth Circuit has established that an equity cushion of 20% constitutes adequate protection for a secured creditor. Pistole v. Mellor (In re Mellor), 734 F.2d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Downey Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Helionetics, Inc. (In re Helionetics, Inc.), 70 B.R. 433, 440 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1987) (holding that a 20.4% equity cushion was sufficient to protect the creditor’s interest in its collateral).

Charles DeBus, the Debtor’s managing member, states that he has "not yet sorted out and formed an opinion as to the value of the equipment covered by Movant’s financing." DeBus Decl. at ¶2. Mr. Knox’s declaration is the only valuation evidence before the Court. For purposes of this Motion only, the Court finds, based upon Mr. Knox’s testimony, that the Property is worth $26,562.58.

Because Movant’s claim is also $25,562.58, Movant’s interest in the Property is not adequately protected. To avoid stay-relief, the Debtor must make monthly adequate protection payments to Movant in the amount of $815.18 (which is the amount due under the note). The adequate protection payments shall not be subject to disgorgement once the value of the Property has been adjudicated, as proposed by the Debtor. The Debtor’s proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of adequate protection. By definition, adequate protection payments cannot be subject to disgorgement; otherwise, such payments would not protect the secured creditor’s interest in its collateral.

Section 362(d)(2)Section 362(d)(2) requires the Court to grant stay-relief if the Debtor lacks equity

in the property and if the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. As discussed above, for purposes of this Motion only, the Court finds that the

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM



Los Angeles



Debtor lacks equity in the Property. However, the Property is necessary for an effective reorganization. Obviously the Debtor cannot continue to operate its gym without exercise equipment. The Court declines to grant stay-relief under §362(d)(2).

III. ConclusionBased upon the foregoing, the Motion is DENIED, provided that the Debtor

makes monthly adequate protection payments of $815.18.

No appearance is required if submitting on the court’s tentative ruling. If you intend to submit on the tentative ruling, please contact Daniel Koontz or Jessica Vogel at 213-894-1522. If you intend to contest the tentative ruling and appear, please first contact opposing counsel to inform them of your intention to do so. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required. If you wish to make a telephonic appearance, contact Court Call at 888-882-6878, no later than one hour before the hearing.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

F.A.S.S.T. LLC Represented ByRobert M Yaspan

of 3311/22/2018 7:50:31 PM

united states bankruptcy court central district of...

Documents