Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. ScripsAmerica, Inc.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

June 30, 2015

IRONRIDGE GLOBAL IV, LTD., Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SCRIPSAMERICA, INC., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC524230. Rolf M. Treu, Judge.

Page 260

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 261

COUNSEL

Needham Law Firm and Carlos E. Needham for Defendant and Appellant.

Horvitz & Levy, David S. Ettinger, Steven S. Fleischman; Incite Law Group and Mark A. Vegas for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

GRIMES, J.

Plaintiff Ironridge Global IV, Ltd., sued defendant ScripsAmerica, Inc., to recover a debt. The parties were able to reach a settlement, by which defendant agreed to give plaintiff shares of defendant’s stock in satisfaction of the debt. The agreement also provided a mechanism whereby plaintiff would receive additional shares if the value of defendant’s stock decreased. The parties petitioned the court to enter judgment on their stipulated settlement, and to retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce the settlement. The trial court entered judgment as requested. Plaintiff later moved ex parte to enforce the settlement, because defendant had failed to complete a stock transfer required by its falling stock prices. The trial court entered an order compelling defendant to issue stock to plaintiff, and prohibiting defendant from transferring stock to any third parties until the outstanding shares were transferred to plaintiff.

Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked authority to restrain it from transferring shares to third parties, and that the court could not provide injunctive relief on an ex parte basis. Since entry of the order,

Page 262

defendant has transferred millions of shares of stock to third parties and has not issued any shares to plaintiff. Based on defendant's repeated violations of the trial court’s order, plaintiff has moved to dismiss the appeal under the disentitlement doctrine. We agree that dismissal is the appropriate remedy for defendant’s flagrant disregard for the order which is the subject of this appeal.

BACKGROUND

On October 11, 2013, plaintiff sued defendant to collect a debt. On November 8, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation for settlement of plaintiff’s claim, setting forth the terms of the parties’ settlement, and asking the court to enter judgment in accordance with their stipulation. The parties’ stipulation provided that plaintiff owned a legitimate claim against defendant, valued at $686, 962.08, plus interest and attorney fees. To satisfy this claim, defendant would initially issue plaintiff 8, 690, 000 shares of “unrestricted and freely [tradeable] exempted” common stock in its company.[1] The agreement contemplated additional stock transfers to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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