Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GRIMMETT v. WILSON

United States District Court, S.D. California


September 16, 2005.

TOM GRIMMETT, COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER FOR CURO FUNDS, LP AND CURO MANAGEMENT, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
ARTHUR WILSON, an individual; 4COVERY, INC., a Washington corporation; 4COVERY FORECLOSURE RECOVERY SPECIALISTS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; MORTGAGE AVENUE, a foreign entity; PROPERTY PLUS, a foreign entity; REALSTREET PROPERTIES, a foreign entity; REALSTREET REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FUND, LP, a foreign limited partnership; REALSTREET CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, REALSTREET INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT, a foreign entity; REALSTREET INVESTMENT ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; GABOR HARSANYI, an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN HOUSTON, Magistrate Judge

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

The above matter having come on for hearing on July 28, 2005 pursuant to a Motion for Default Judgment filed by Plaintiff, TOM GRIMMETT, Court Appointed Receiver of Curo Funds, LP and Curo Management, LLC, by and through counsel, DION-KINDEM & CROCKETT and GERRARD, COX & LARSEN, against Defendants, ARTHUR WILSON, an individual; 4COVERY, INC., a Washington corporation; 4COVERY FORECLOSURE RECOVERY SPECIALISTS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; MORTGAGE AVENUE, a foreign entity; PROPERTY PLUS, a foreign entity; REALSTREET PROPERTIES, a foreign entity; REALSTREET REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FUND, LP, a foreign limited partnership; REALSTREET CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, REALSTREET INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT, a foreign entity; and REALSTREET INVESTMENT ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, a Washington limited liability company (collectively "Default Defendants"), the Default of the Default Defendants having been previously entered for failure to answer or otherwise defend as to the First Amended Complaint, it appearing that the Default Defendants are not in the military service of the United States and are not an infant or incompetent person, the Court having considered the Motion for Default Judgment, including the Memorandum of Point and Authorities, the Declarations of Tom Grimmett, Gary C. Milne, Esq. and Steven R. Skirvin, Esq. in support thereof, the evidence proffered by the Plaintiff at the hearing in support of Default Judgment that was acknowledged in open court by Mr. Grimmett, the Court being fully advised in the premises, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby finds as follows:

  Based upon the proffer of evidence made in open court and the acknowledgment of same by Tom Grimmett, court appointed receiver for Curo Funds, LP and Curo Management, LLC, the Court finds (i) that the causes of action asserted by the Plaintiff for an accounting, conversion, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, professional malpractice, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, alter ego, unjust enrichment, equitable lien, constructive lien and injunctive relief against the Default Defendants are meritorious, sufficiently pled, and undisputed; (ii) that the sum of money at stake in this action ($1,508,103.23) is evidenced by the documents proffered by the Plaintiff; (iii) that the Plaintiff has been prejudiced by the actions of the Default Defendants and failure to enter default judgment would work a further prejudice; (iv) that the default entered herein was not due to excusable neglect as the Default Defendants appeared before the Court in the District of Nevada, after being served with the Complaint and moved to dismiss the matter alleging that jurisdiction was improper, but failed to appear before the Court in the Southern District of California after being served with the First Amended Complaint; and (v) although there is a strong policy of deciding matters on the merits, which is not furthered by entry of a default judgment, all other factors and criteria presented to this Court weigh in favor of entry of default judgment.

  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff recover of and from the Default Defendants, jointly and severally, in accordance with the Court's findings and rulings made in open court, which are adopted herein by this reference, as follows:

  The principal sum, including pre-judgment interest, of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THREE AND 23/100 DOLLARS ($1,508,103.23), plus punitive damages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($500,000.00), plus costs in the amount of TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TEN AND 96/100 DOLLARS ($2,910.96), plus attorneys fees of THIRTY-NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($39,784.00), for a total judgment of TWO MILLION FIFTY THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT AND 10/100 DOLLARS ($2,050,798.10), plus post-judgment interest accruing on the judgment ($2,050,798.10) at the rate of (6.25%) per annum from July 28, 2005 until paid.

20050916

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.