Motion_to_compel_motion_to_compel_execution_of_a_satisfaction_of_judgment_and_for_an_offset_from_defendant_blue_water_sunset_llc_memorandum_of_points_and_authorities_declaration_of_loyst_p_fletcher_and_jeffrey_a_cohenMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.August 3, 2017Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/11/2019 07:25 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J . Lara,Deputy Clerk NO 0 N N i BR W N N O N N N N N N O N N N = or m md mt md b d be d e d e e C 0 NN O N Wn Rh W N = O O 0 0 N N RR W N = O Loyst P. Fletcher, State Bar No. 175539 LAW OFFICES OF LOYST P. FLETCHER 555 W. 5" St., 35" Fl. Los Angeles, California 90013 TEL: (424) 231-2864 FAX: (213) 402-7663 Attorney(s) for Plaintiff, PHILIP MARKOWITZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PHILIP MARKOWITZ, an individual; RAIL PROP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and FOUR STAR GENERAL PROPERTIES, LLC, a California Limited )JCASE NO.: BC670741 (Hon. Lia Martin, Dept. 16) PLAINTIFF PHILIP MARKOWITZ’S Liability Company, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A Plaintiffs, SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND FOR AN OFFSET FROM DEFENDANT BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LOYST P. FLETCHER; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. COHEN; [PROPOSED] ORDER Vv. BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; THE COCHRAN FIRM, a Professional Corporation; RANDY H. MCMURRAY, ESQ., an individual; YANA HENRIKS, ESQ., an individual; KOUJAKAIAN TERENIK, INC., a Professional Corporation; PHILIP DAPEER, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, [Filed Concurrently With Request for Judicial Notice] Reservation ID: 805750707948 Date: July 17, 2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 16 Defendants. N e ? ” N e t e e ? sr ’ u t ? e r ? “r t “u st “s eu s “se u “se “s et t “ s p “e at “ e t “e ur “ seu age “p tt “ cu rs “a ge “s eg s “e ws TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 17, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 16 of the above-entitled court located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Plaintiff PHILIP MARKOWITZ (hereinafter, Plaintiff MARKOWITZ), by and through his attorney of record, LAW OFFICES OF LOYST P. FLETCHER, will move this this Court for an order 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... OO © NN O N Un BR W N - o N O N N N N N DN mm m m e m md e m md p d b d ee A hh Rh W N = O NO 0 N N R W 27 |i 28 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050 to compel Defendant BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (hereinafter, Defendant BWS) to file and serve an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment and For An Offset pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877, et seq., fundamental equitable principles and dispositive California law. Moving party also seeks an order that Defendant BWS and its attorney of record, Yana G. Henriks, Esq., of McMurray Henriks, LLP, pay monetary sanctions in the sum of $9,510 for the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this proceeding pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §724.080, and for the forfeit of $100, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050, for a total of $9,610. The Motion will be based on this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities set forth below, the attached Declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher and exhibits thereto, the attached Declaration of Jeffrey A. Cohen and exhibits thereto; and on such further evidence and argument as may be presented prior to or at the time of the hearing on this Motion. DATED: February 11, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF LOYST P. FLETCHER By: Lop” £ Fl iclto- Loyst P. Fletcher, Esq. Attorney(s) for Plaintiff, PHILIP MARKOWITZ 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... NO 0 N N nn BA W N N O N N O N N N N N N - m e e m e m e m e s e s e s 00 NN O N LL A W N = O OVO 0 N N N N R L N N O MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES L INTRODUCTION This motion has been necessitated by counsel for Defendant BWS’ refusal to file a satisfaction of judgment following Plaintiff MARKOWITZ’S payment of $7,420.00 to them on or about May 25, 2018. This payment constituted a full satisfaction of the money judgment of attorneys fees of $32,000.00 that Defendant BWS had obtained against Plaintiff MARKOWITZ in the within malicious prosecution matter. This is because MARKOWITZ had offsets totaling $24,946.20, representing the amount awarded him in the underlying case, case number BC316696, wherein he had obtained a judgment against BWS. (A true and correct copy of the Judgment in Blue Water Sunset, LLC, v. First View, LLC, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court case number BC316696, dated December 12, 2014, is attached to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher as Exhibit 1.) A detailed accounting is provided in section II, below. IL FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. AMOUNT OWED BY PLAINTIFF MARKOWITZ On April 20, 2018, Defendant BWS obtained a money judgment of attorneys fees against Plaintiff MARKOWITZ in the amount of $32,000.00. (A true and correct copy of the Order Re: Declaration in Support of Defendant Blue Water Sunset, LLC’s Motion for Fees and Costs, dated April 20, 2018, is attached to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher as Exhibit 2.) The accrued interest on this judgment from April 20, 2018, to May 30, 2018 is $350.80, making the total $32,350.80. (Declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher) B. OFFSETS DUE PLAINTIFF MARKOWITZ As of May 30, 2018, Plaintiff MARKOWITZ had the following offsets, totaling $24,946.20: 1) Costs awarded MARKOWITZ for the December 12, 2014, judgment against BWS in the underlying case, Blue Water Sunset, LLC, v. First View, LLC, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court case number BC316696: $15,603.93 (A true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Costs (Summary) dated December 26, 2014, is attached to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher as Exhibit 3.); 2) Costs awarded Plaintiff MARKOWITZ for the August 30, 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... Oo 0 N Y hh lB W N N O N N O N N O N O N N N mm m m e t e m ee t e t pe et pe d 0 ~~ AA Wh BR W N = O NO N N N NY R W = O 2017, judgment against BWS in the appeal of BC316696: $3,794.88 (A true and correct copy of the Writ of Execution (Money Judgment) dated October 20, 2017, is attached to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher as Exhibit 4.); 3) Post-judgment costs and interest due Plaintiff MARKOWITZ for the December 12, 2014, judgment: $5,258.31 (A true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Costs After Judgment dated April 26, 2018, is attached to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher as Exhibit 5.); and 4) Post-judgment costs and interest due Plaintiff MARKOWITZ for the August 30, 2017, judgment: $289.080. (Declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher) C. SUMMARY The total of judgment and interest is $32,350.80, the offsets are $24,946.20, making the total due $7,404.60." Counsel for Plaintiff, Jeffrey A. Cohen, transmitted a cover letter and a check for this amount to counsel for Defendant BWS, Yana G. Henriks, Esq., on or about May 25,2017. (A true and correct copy of the cover letter and check is attached to the declaration of Jeffrey A. Cohen as Exhibit 6.) Thereafter, Ms. Henriks asked Mr. Cohen to cancel the cashiers check and instead to wire the money to her firm’s trust account. (Declaration of Jeffrey A. Cohen) On or about May 25, 2018, Mr. Cohen wired $7,420.00 to the trust account of McMurray Henriks, LLP, in full satisfaction of the April 20, 2018, judgment against Plaintiff. (A true and correct copy of the receipt from U.S. Bank evidencing the wire transfer is attached to the declaration of Jeffrey A. Cohen as Exhibit 7.) D. DEMAND FOR SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT On December 3, 2018, counsel for Plaintiff MARKOWITZ served a formal demand on Yana G. Henriks, Esq., counsel for Defendant BWS, to file a satisfaction of judgment in this matter pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050. (A true and correct copy of this document is attached to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher as Exhibit 8.) Ms. Henriks has refused to comply with the demand, necessitating the within motion. (A true and correct copy of Ms. Henriks’ ! (The total transmitted to Defendants’ counsel’s office was $7,420.00 not $7,404.60, because it included an overpayment of $15 to cover the cost of the notarization of the satisfaction of judgment.) 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... O O 0 N N Lh R W N N N N N N N N N o m e m e m e m t md be d pe d ee d be d 00 ~~ O N Wn RA W N = O NO N N Rh W N - = © December 3, 2018, correspondence is attached to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher as Exhibit 9.) Ms. Henriks claims that there was no judgment in favor of Mr. Markowitz in that case but the record is clear that there was. A judgment was entered in favor of Mr. Markowitz in the underlying case, BC316696. (Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher) The Ruling on BWS’ Request to Tax or Strike Costs that was heard on March 2, 2015, shows that the Court denied those costs that it found were not directly incurred by MARKOWITZ, but allowed the costs that were directly incurred by him, which totaled $15,603.93. (A true and correct copy the Ruling on BWS’ Request to Tax or Strike Costs is attached to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher as Exhibit 10.) In Ms. Henriks correspondence (Exhibit 9 to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher), she also brought up a separate issue of a judgment that she and her partner Mr. McMurray had obtained against Mr. Markowitz in August of 2018. In a gesture of good faith, and in a effort to finally settle all disputes between the parties, counsel for Plaintiff MARKOWITZ responded to Ms. Henriks’ correspondence on December 6, 2018, with a promise to pay the outstanding amounts of $5678.17 to Ms. Henriks and $449.50 to Mr. McMurray. (A true and correct copy of Mr. Fletcher’s December 6, 2018, correspondence is attached to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher as Exhibit 11.) Despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s overtures, counsel for Defendant BWS continues to refuse to comply with the December 2, 2018, demand. III. AUTHORITY FOR MOTION Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §724.030, a judgment creditor is obligated to file an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment: “When a money judgment is satisfied, the judgment creditor immediately shall file with the Court an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment...” This motion is authorized under California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050, which provides as follows: (a) If a money judgment has been satisfied, the judgment debtor, the owner of real or personal property subject to a judgment lien created under the judgment, or a person having a security interest in or a lien on personal property subject to a Judgment lien created under the judgment may serve personally or by mail on the 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... OO 00 N N O N Vn As W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 judgment creditor a demand in writing that the judgment creditor do one or both of the following: (1) File an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court. (2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand. (b) The demand shall include the following statement: “Important warning. If this judgment has been satisfied, the law requires that you comply with this demand not later than 15 days after you receive it. If a court proceeding is necessary to compel you to comply with this demand, you will be required to pay my reasonable attorney’s fees in the proceeding if the court determines that the judgment has been satisfied and that you failed to comply with the demand. In addition, if the court determines that you failed without just cause to comply with this demand within the 15 days allowed, you will be liable for all damages I sustain by reason of such failure and will also forfeit one hundred dollars to me.” (c) If the judgment has been satisfied, the judgment creditor shall comply with the demand not later than 15 days after actual receipt of the demand. (d) If the judgment creditor does not comply with the demand within the time . allowed, the person making the demand may apply to the court on noticed motion for an order requiring the judgment creditor to comply with the demand. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgment creditor. Service shall be made personally or by mail. If the court determines that the judgment has been satisfied and that the judgment creditor has not complied with the demand, the court shall either (1) order the judgment creditor to comply with the demand or (2) order the court clerk to enter satisfaction of the judgment. (e) If the judgment has been satisfied and the judgment creditor fails without just cause to comply with the demand within the time allowed, the judgment creditor is liable to the person who made the demand for all damages sustained by reason of such failure and shall also forfeit one hundred dollars ($100) to such person. Liability under this subdivision may be determined in the proceedings on the motion pursuant to subdivision (d) or in an action. California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050. Counsel for Plaintiff MARKOWITZ served a California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050 demand on counsel for Defendant BWS on December 3, 2018. (Exhibit 8 to the declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher.) A. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN OFFSET "A motion to compel acknowledgment of satisfaction or partial satisfaction of a judgment ([Code Civ. Proc.,] §§ 724.050, subd. (d), 724.110, subd. (b)) is an entirely acceptable procedure 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... N e E E ~ R - V S N N N O N N N N N R = e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e e 0 NN O N UL A W N = O O N N N N R L N = OO for seeking an offset against ajudgment." (Jhaveriv. Teitelbaum (2009) 176 Cal. App.4th 740, 753.) Plaintiff MARKOWITZ seeks an offset pursuant to long-standing fundamental equitable principles and dispositive California law. “[E]quitable offset is a means by which a debtor may satisfy in whole or in part a judgment or claim held against him out of a judgment or claim which he has subsequently acquired against his judgment creditor. The right exists independently of statute and rests upon the inherent power of the court to do justice to the parties before it. (See generally, Erlich v. Superior Court (1965) 63 Cal. 2d 551 [47 Cal. Rptr. 473, 407 P.2d 649]; Highsmith v. Lair (1955) 44 Cal. 2d 298 [281 P.2d 865]; Harrison v. Adams (1942) 20 Cal. 2d 646 [128 P.2d 9]; Haskins v. Jordan (1898) 123 Cal. 157 [55 P. 786].) As was stated by our Supreme Court in Harrison v. Adams, supra: "[I]t is well settled that a court of equity will compel a set-off when mutual demands are held under such circumstances that one of them should be applied against the other and only the balance recovered. The insolvency of the party against whom the relief is sought affords sufficient ground for invoking this equitable principle. [Citations.] And a judgment debtor who has, by assignment or otherwise, become the owner of a judgment or claim against his judgment creditor, may go into the court in which the judgment against him was rendered and have his judgment offset against the first judgment. [Citations.]" (Id., at plaintiff. 648-649.) Salman v. Bolt (1977), 74 Cal.App.3d, 907 at 918. The Salman court went on to “...conclude that the offset of judgment against judgment is a matter of right absent the existence of some facts establishing an equitable principle precluding it (emphasis added). (Harrison v. Adams, supra, 20 Cal. 2d 646 at plaintiff. 648-649; Norman v. Berney (1965) 235 Cal. App. 2d 424, 434 [45 [74 Cal. App. 3d 920] Cal.Rptr. 467]; Margott v. Gem Properties, Inc., supra, 34 Cal.App.3d at p. 854.) Salman at 920. Here, Plaintiff MARKOWITZ is entitled to an offset under equitable principles delineated above. Even though the judgments occurred in separate actions, they are directly related. The second case, for malicious prosecution, directly arose out of the underlying case and the judgments involve the identical parties. Plaintiff MARKOWITZ seeks an offset pursuant to the accounting set forth in section II., above. IV. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES California Code of Civil Procedure §724.080 provides: “[iJn an action or proceeding maintained pursuant to this chapter, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.” (Emphasis added) 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... Oo 0 N N nn R A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In addition, if the judgment has been satisfied and the judgment creditor fails without just cause to comply with the demand in the time allowed, a monetary sanction of $100.00 is authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure § 724.050(e). Where “just cause” for failure to comply does not exist, the judgment creditor is liable to the judgment debtor for all damages sustained as a result. Liability under subdivision (e) may be determined in the proceedings on the motion pursuant to subdivision (d) or in a subsequent action. (California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050(e).) Here, Plaintiff MARKOWITZ is seeking damages in the form of attorneys fees. As set forth herein, Defendant BWS does not have just cause for failing to comply with the demand. Plaintiff MARKOWITZ is also entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §724.080 against Defendant BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC, and its counsel of record, Yana G. Henriks, Esq. of McMurray Henriks, LLP, jointly and severally. In this case, Plaintiff MARKOWITZ is requesting attorney’s fees in the amount of $9,510, as set forth in the attached Declaration of Loyst P. Fletcher. V. CONCLUSION Plaintiff respectfully requests this court to order that Defendant BWS immediately execute and file an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment in favor of Plaintiff MARKOWITZ in this matter and forfeit the amount of $100.00 to Plaintiff’s counsel; and enter an Award of Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $9,510 against Defendant BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC, and its attorney of record, Yana G. Henriks, Esq., of McMurray Henriks, LLP, jointly and severally. DATED: February 11, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF LOYST P. FLETCHER By: A J? Fl ie Elen Loyst P. Fletcher, Esq. Attorney(s) for Plaintiff PHILIP MARKOWITZ 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... - OO 00 J A N n n bs WwW NN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF LOYST P. FLETCHER I, Loyst P. Fletcher, declare as follows: 1. Tam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California, attorney of record for Plaintiff PHILIP MARKOWITZ. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. MARKOWITZ has offsets totaling $24,946.20, representing the amount awarded him in the underlying case, case number BC316696, wherein he had obtained a judgment against BWS. (A true and correct copy of the Judgment in Blue Water Sunset, LLC, v. First View, LLC, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court case number BC316696, dated December 12, 2014, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) 3. On April 20, 2018, Defendant BWS obtained a money judgment of attorneys fees against Plaintiff MARKOWITZ in the amount of $32,000.00. (A true and correct copy of the Order Re: Declaration in Support of Defendant Blue Water Sunset, LLC’s Motion for Fees and Costs, dated April 20, 2018, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) The accrued interest on this judgment from April 20, 2018, to May 30, 2018 is $350.80, making the total $32,350.80. 4. As of May 30, 2018, Plaintiff MARKOWITZ had the following offsets, totaling $24,946.20: 1) Costs awarded MARKOWITZ for the December 12, 2014, judgment against BWS in the underlying case, Blue Water Sunset, LLC, v. First View, LLC, et al., BC316696: $15,603.93 (A true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Costs (Summary) dated December 26, 2014, is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.); 2) Costs awarded Plaintiff MARKOWITZ for the August 30, 2017, judgment against BWS in the appeal of BC316696: $3,794.88 (A true and correct copy of the Writ of Execution (Money Judgment) dated October 20, 2017, is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.); 3) Post-judgment costs and interest due Plaintiff MARKOWITZ for the December 12,2014, judgment: $5,258.31 (A true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Costs After Judgment dated April 26, 2018, is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.); and 9 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... NO 0 N N n n A W N N O N O N N O N N N N N m e m m e e m e m ee e m e t e m 0 ~~ A Lh bh W N = © Ov N N N nM ERE W M D = CO 4) Post-judgment costs and interest due Plaintiff MARKOWITZ for the August 30, 2017, judgment: $289.080. 5. The total of judgment and interest is $32,350.80, the offsets are $24,946.20, making the total due $7,404.60.2 6. On December 3, 2018, my office served a formal demand on Yana G. Henriks, Esq., of McMurray Henriks, LLP, counsel for Defendant BWS, to file a satisfaction of judgment in this matter pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050. (A true and correct copy of this document is attached to the hereto as Exhibit 8.) { 7. Ms. Henriks has refused to comply with the demand, necessitating the within motion. (A true and correct copy of Ms. Henriks’ December 3, 2018, correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.) 8. The Ruling on BWS’ Request to Tax or Strike Costs in the underlying case that was heard on March 2, 2015, shows that the Court denied those costs that it found were not directly incurred by MARKOWITZ, but allowed the costs that were directly incurred by him, which totaled $15,603.93. (A true and correct copy of the Ruling on BWS’ Request to Tax or Strike Costs in Blue Water Sunset, LLC, v. First View, LLC, et al., BC316696, is attached to hereto as Exhibit 10). 9. In Ms. Henriks’ correspondence, she brought up a separate issue of a judgment that she and her partner Mr. McMurray had obtained against Mr. Markowitz in August of 2018. In a gesture of good faith, and in a effort to finally settle all disputes between the parties, my office responded to Ms. Henriks’ correspondence on December 6, 2018, with a promise to pay the outstanding amounts of $5678.17 to Ms. Henriks and $449.50 to Mr. McMurray. (A trueand correct copy of my office’s December 6, 2018, correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 11.) 10. Despite our overtures, counsel for Defendant BWS continues to refuse to comply with the | December 3, 2018, California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050 demand. 11.1 have spent approximately 13 hours preparing this Motion. In addition, I have spent 2 (The total transmitted to Defendants’ counsel’s office was $7,420.00 not $7,404.60, because it included an overpayment of $15 to cover the cost of the notarization of the satisfaction of judgment.) 10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... NO 0 N N wn R W N O N ND N N O N N N ND m m em e m e m e m e m e d p e d e d 0 ~~ OA Wn A W N = © WV N N B R A W L = O approximately 2 hours meeting and conferring and preparing letters to counsel for Defendant BWS [| regarding Plaintiff's California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050 demand. It is anticipated that another 3 hours will be required to travel to and appear at the hearing of this Motion, for a total of 18 hours. The filing fee incurred was $60. My rate of billing is $525 per hour, therefore, total costs and attorney's fees in regard to this Motion to Compel is $9,510. Adding the statutory forfeiture amount of $100 due from Defendant BWS pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § §724.050(e), the total amount requested is $9,610. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this 11™ day of February, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. Loyst P. Fletcher, Declarant 11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... Oo 0 9 A N Wn hh W N N N N ND N N N O N ND = e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e m pe 0 NN NN Ln A W N = O O O N D D R A W N = Oo DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. COHEN I, Jeffrey A. Cohen, declare as follows: 1. Tam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. Itransmitted a cover letter and a check for the amount of $7,404.60 to counsel for Defendant BWS, Yana G. Henriks, Esq., on or about May 25, 2017. (A true and correct copy of the cover letter and check is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.) 3. Thereafter, Ms. Henriks asked me to cancel the cashiers check and instead to wire the money to her firm’s trust account. On or about May 25, 2018, I wired $7,420.00 to the trust account of McMurray Henriks, LLP, in full satisfaction of the April 20, 2018, judgment against Plaintiff. (A true and correct copy of the receipt from U.S. Bank evidencing the wire transfer is hereto as Exhibit 7.) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, Signed this 15, of February, 2019 in Chino, California. . Cohen, =a 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT... EXHIBIT 1 - © 0 ~N O O Oo A Ww DN N N N N N D N D N D N D DN N D DN @ QQ a a A QQ QQ a «a «a -_ oo ~N Nn an SH w No tn oO © Q o ~l Dn O n Hn w N - oOo FILED Superior ¢ 0 ounty of Los $ poalifomi DEC 1 2 2p Sherri o rter, Cutiv Officer/Cler Irene la Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC Plaintiff, | VS. FIRST VIEW, LLC, etal. Defendant. CASE NO. BC 316696 JUDGMENT Date: December 10, 2014 Dept: 34 Judge: Michael Paul Linfield This case came on regularly for trial on September 18, 2014, in Department 34 of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Michael P. Linfield, Judge, presiding, sitting without a jury, a jury having been duly waived. The trial ended with the Court granting Defendants’ motion for entry of judgment, and judgment is entered for all Defendants and against Plaintiff as follows: All parties were accounted for at trial. Plaintiff Blue Water Sunset LLC appeared at trial by its attorneys, Randy H. McMurray and Yana G. Henriks, of McMurray Henriks, LLP. Defendant Philip Markowitz appeared at trial by his 1 JUDGEMENT -- S¢ 11 1 Ty F T -- © 00 N N oO Oo A Ww N N N O N DN N D N D NN DN D N D N 2 aA A QQ @ 2 a «a aa 0 ~N O O O h A W N a 0 OW 0 0 N D LW W NN DN ~~ OO ® | ® attorney Michael J. Buley of the Law Offices of Michael J. Buley. Defendants First View, LLC; Rail Prop, LLC, and Markowitz Investment Group, LLC, made no appearances due to the prior entry of defaults having been entered against them, said defaults subject to being vacated or judgment thereon being entered depending on the outcome of the herein proceeding and its impact on the claims asserted against First View, LLC, Rail Prop, LLC, and Markowitz Investment Group, LLC. The Trial proceeded on the single issue of whether Blue Water Sunset, LLC ever attained membership status in Defendants First View, LLC; Rail Prop, LLC, and/or Markowitz Investment Group, LLC, by paying its $1,000 initial cash contribution into any or all of these limited liability companies. Plaintiff Blue Water Sunset, LLC submitted evidence, both oral and documentary, and rested its case at the conclusion of its evidence presentation. At the conclusion of Plaintiff's evidentiary submission, and upon Plaintiff formally resting its case, Defendant Philip Markowitz moved the Court for entry of judgment in favor of Markowitz and against Blue Water Sunset, LLC pursuant to CCP § 631.8. The Court granted that motion because Plaintiff failed to prove that it invested its initial capital contribution in any of the defendant limited liability companies. The motion having been argued and submitted for decision, and the Court having made an oral statement of decision in favor of granting the motion, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant Philip Markowitz and against Plaintiff Blue Water Sunset, LLC. Plaintiff Blue Water Sunset, LLC, having 2 JUDGEMENT © 0 0 ~N O O 0 bh W w DN a N N O N N N N N ND N N 2 a m a m am a a Qa a Qa aA HA W N A O © O N oO o b s , LW» N N ~~ OO T F BA : T A N N ~N Oo i N [00 ] failed to make its initial capital contribution into any of the Defendant limited liability companies and, therefore, having failed to prove an essential substantive element of each cause of action in the currently operative complaint, shall take nothing from any of its claims in the complaint. In addition, Defendant Philip Markowitz shall recover from Blue Water Sunset, LLC costs and other disbursements in the sum of $ as determined by appropriate post judgment motion(s). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that The Judgment against Plaintiff Blue Water Sunset, LLC having determined, as a matter of law, that Blue Water Sunset, LLC never attained membership status nor was afforded any of the benefits of membership in any of the Defendant LLC's, judgment is further issued in favor of First View, LLC, Rail Prop, LLC, and Markowitz Investment Group, LLC and against Plaintiff Blue Water Sunset, LLC as follows: 1. The Defaults entered against Defendants First View, LLC, Rail Prop, LLC, and Markowitz Investment Group, LLC, on February 2, 2010 are vacated and Judgment in favor of these Defendants is made with these Defendants to recover Costs in the sum of $ as determined by appropriate post judgment motion(s). 2. The following real property currently under the management of a court appointed receiver with a record title reflecting a 50% ownership interest in the name of Blue Water Sunset, LLC hereby has its title corrected to reflect it is owned 100% by Rail Prop, LLC. Said Blue Water Sunset, LLC's 50% interest being obtained when Blue Water Sunset, LLC transferred said 50% interest from Rail Prop, LLC to Blue Water Sunset, LLC at a time when 3 JUDGEMENT © 00 N N O O Oo Ah W N a N N N N nN N nN nN nN -- - - -_ - al - - - - C0 ~ » [ ) ] HH w nN -_ oO © [0 ] ~ a» On H w N -_ oOo Blue Water Sunset, LLC was acting under its alleged, and subsequently invalidated, authority as a purported member in Rail Prop, LLC. The Property in question is titled one-half interest in Rail Prop, LLC and one-half interest in Blue Water Sunset, LLC and has the following legal descriptions as identified in prior Receivership Orders: Parcel 6: Assessor's Parcel No. 7424-024-056; 7424-024-059; 7424-024-061. That portion of lots 2, 6 and 10 in block 24, range 7 of New San Pedro (commonly known as Wilmington) in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 6, Page 66 of Deeds in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County, lying northwesterly of the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way. Parcel 7: Assessor's Parcel No. 7424-024-055; 7424-024-057, 7424-024-058; 7424-024-060; 7424-024-062. All of lots 1 and 5 and those portions of Lots 3, 9 and 11 in Block 24, Range 7 in the town of Wilmington (formerly New San Pedro) in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, state of California, as per Map Recorded in Book 6, page 66 of Deeds in the Office Of the County Recorder of said county, lying Northwesterly of the Los Angeles and San Pedro Railroad Company Right-of-Way described in Book 13, Page 238 of Deeds, Records of said County. 4 JUDGEMENT m o r s ¥ 1 © 00 ~N O O O h h Ww N N a No N N nN N N N N nN -- -_ So = -_ - - - - - o o ~ ND wn » w nN - oo «© Q o ~ a» [8 ] Hn w nN - oO Reserved therefrom for the benefit of beneficiary, All rights to minerals, oils, gas, tars, hydrocarbons and metalliferous substances of every kind, together with the right to drill or mine through the surface of the upper five hundred (500) feet of the subsurface of said land. Blue Water Sunset, LLC is hereby ordered to execute the appropriate Quitclaim Deed(s), as presented by counsel for Philip Markowitz, transferring said record title interests out of its name and into the name of Rail Prop, LLC. 3. All real property, money and bank accounts in possession and after the management and/or control of the Court-appointed receiver in this case shall be turned over, after final judgment in this action, to Rail Prop LLC and/or such persons or entities on title to the real property listed below. Such turnover shall take place upon finality of an order on the receiver's motion for Approval of his Final Account, Termination of Receivership, Discharge of Receiver, and Exoneration of Bonds. “All real property” shall mean and include all the real property currently under the management and control of the Receiver as part of this action and includes those parcels identified in paragraph 2 above as well as those additional parcels described as follows: Parcel 1: Assessor's Parcel No. 7424-025-003; 7424-025-004; 7424-025-009; 7424-025-010;7424-025-011; 7424-025-12; 7424- 025-013; 7424-025-14; 7424-025-045; 7424-025-046. Lots 1,2, 3,4,7,8,9, 10, 11, and 12, Tract No. 3375, in the City Of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, per map recorded in 5 JUDGEMENT a F d e r e h o e T -- N N O N N D N N N D DD MN D DN a2 A a a AQ @ @ SG a a =a 0 ~N O O O r DA W N A O © O N OO O O h , D O N ~~ Oo © 00 N N O O Oo bsA o w WN Book 34, Page 55 of Maps. Record Title reflects Four Star General Properties, LLC as owner. - Parcel 2: Assessor's Parcel No. 7424-025-015; 7424-025-016. Lots 30 and 31 Tract No. 3375, in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, per map recorded in Book 34, Page 55 of Maps. Record Title reflects Four Star General Properties, LLC as owner. Parcel 3: Assessor's Parcel No. 7424-025-017. Lot 32 Tract No. 3375, in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles; per Map recorded in Book 34, Page 55 of Maps. Record Title reflects Four Star General Properties, LLC as owner. Parcel 4: Assessor's Parcel No. 7424-024-050; 7424-024-051. Lot 17 and 19 of Resubdivsion of Block 23, Range 7, Wilmington, In the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, per map recorded in Book 4, Page 44 of Maps. Record Title reflects Four Star General Properties, LLC as owner. 4. Plaintiff Blue Water Sunset, LLC shall execute any and all documents necessary to remove itself as an identified member of First View, 6 JUDGEMENT - © o o ~N Oo Oo hh Ww N N O N NN N D ND DND N N D BN D DN 2 aa ada a aA aa a =a «a «a 0 ~N O O Oo bh W N Aa O O © 00 N OO O E Ww N N ~~ oO LLC, Rail Prop, LLC, and Markowitz Investment Group, LLC as it may presently be reflected as such on any bank records, real estate records, or governmental agencies, including but not limited to the California Secretary of State. 5. The Notice of Pendency of Action filed and recorded by Blue Water Sunset, LLC in conjunction with this action is ordered cancelled and expunged by this judgment. 6. Judgement is stayed 30 days to allow for appeal. DATED: 2 DEC 12 2014 014 7 JUDGEMENT EXHIBIT 2 [R y N O R D D DN R R BN N B ) k e e a m m H p s p t pe d p m pe a W N N U B W R S W oe N R L R W N o e OD O x = I O N WU as W y b a FILED Suparior Court of California ounty of Los Angeles APR 20 2018 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PHILIP MARKOWITZ, an individual; RAIL PROP, LLC, a Cal ifornia Limited: Liability Company; and FOUR STAR GENERAL PROPERTIES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Plaintiffs, Vv. BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; THE COCHRAN FIRM, a Professional Corporation; RANDY H. MCMURRAY, ESQ., an individual; YANA HENRIKS, ESQ. an. individual; KOUJAKAIAN TERENIK, INC, a Professional Corporation; PHILIP DAPEER, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive; Defendants. Case No. BC670741 [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Rita Miller, Dept. 16] BORLSER] ORDER RE: DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC’S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS Date: April 20, 2018 Time; 9:00 AM Dept:. 16 Action filed: August 3, 2017 On April 20, 2018, the motion for attorney’s fees of defendant Blue Water Sunset, LLC came on regularly for hearing before this department; the movant appearing by Randy H. McMurray and Yana G. Henriks of McMurray Henriks, LLP, and Plaintiffs appearing by Loyst Fletcher of the Law ‘Offices of Loyst Fletcher, the Court having reviewed the supporting and opposing submissions and having heard oral argument from the parties, and good cause appearing thereon, [PROPOSED] ORDER We tout KT Fn? pt p> B O W L Lh > 11 13 14 15 16 | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ER hereby GRANTED. fora EN RE =a Op 20 3 0 2 ‘ | of ol chefersint Lue pt Su nser, Cla THEREFORE, IT IS CRDERED that defendant Blue Water Sunset, LLC's motion is Jed q yi t bev Sareea $ 220 Co onTEud [o § against "Plaintiffs Philip Markowitz; ‘Rail Prop, LLC; Four Star General Properties, LLC, jointly and severally, in the amourit of $ 3 2, 000 , with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum beginning the 10% day after entry of this order until paid. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: J wise By: The Honorable Rita Miller Superior Court Judge [PROPOSED] ORDER EXHIBIT 3 - gat @ CE MC-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, stale ber number, and address). Michael J. Buley SBN 164249 / Lisa A. Navarro SBN 195798 ~ Law Offices. Of Michael J. Buley 1300 Bristol St., North, Suite 213 Newport Beach, CA 92660 TetepHone no: 949-752-1161 ; ATTORNEY FOR (Mame): Defendant PHILIP MARKOWITZ = FOR Faxno: 949-752-1195 INSERT NAME OF COURT. JUDICIAL DISTRICT, AND BRANCH COURT, IF ANY: Los Angeles Superior Court/Central District PLAINTIFF; Blue Water Sunset, LLC. DEFENDANT: First View, LLC, et al. Qounty of LB DEC 2 6 2014 Sherri R. Carter, Execu tive Officer/Clg By Jenny Chea, Deput y COURT USE OWLY yy alifornia or Court of plan k 1 CASE NUMBER! MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) A) BC316696 BY The following costs are requested: 1. Filing and motion fees 7. Surety bond premiums 8.. Witness fees ks 10. Attorney fees (enter here if contractual or statutory fees are fixed without necessity of a court determination; otherwise.a noticed motion is required) TOTALS rs [618524 | 2s [15000] s[) 4.$ 16,660 es |] rs] 130MMBF =; TPS NY ds de: ta OR 5 A B2d8 IR TE Zz a 77 9,02. 1.1] TOTAL COSTS oo outa $ 93560477 “lam the attorney, agent, or party who claims these costs. To the best of my knowlédge and belief this memorandum of costs is correct ~.} and these costs were necessarily incurred in this case. "Date: December 26, 2104 Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of Califomia » (Proof of service on reverse) MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) MC 030 13a hea eee =o (SIGE 0 Code of Civil Procedure, GS 40D 1A E EXHIBIT 4 EJ-130 jeffrey A Cohen, State Bar No. 186420 15338 Central Avenue Chino CA 91710 recerHone No: 310-650-6015 E-MAIL ADDRESS: atTorNeY FOR (Name): Philip Markowitz ATTORNEY FOR JUDGMENT CREDITOR |__| ASSIGNEE OF RECORD FAXNO.. FOR COURT USE ONLY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF [0s Angeles streeTApDRESS: 11] N. Hill Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME: Los Angeles 90012 Stanley Mosk Courthouse PLAINTIFF: Blue Water Sunset, LLC DEFENDANT: First View, LLC, et al. EXECUTION (Money Judgment) [] POSSESSION OF - Personal Property Real Property [1 sALE WRIT OF CASE NUMBER: BC 316696 DEPT 34 [J Limited Civil Case [__| Small Claims Case Unlimited Civil Case [__] Other 1. To the Sheriff or Marshal of the County of: Los Angeles You are directed to enforce the judgment described below with daily interest and your costs as provided by law. 2. To any registered process server: You are authorized to serve this writ only in accord with CCP 699.080 or CCP 715.040. 3. (Name): Philip Markowitz is the judgment creditor C1] assignee of record 4. Judgment debtor (name, type of legal entity stated in judgment if not a natural person, and last known address): 90. 10. [J whose address is shown on this form above. the court's name. See next page for information on real or personal property to be delivered under a writ of possession or sold under a writ of sale. This writ is issued on a sister-state judgment. Bue Water Sunset, LLC 11. Total judgment .................. . $ 3794.88 629 S. Orange Drive 12. Costs after judgment (per filed order or ¢ 5.00 memo CCP 685.090) ............ ; Los Angeles CA 90036 13. Subtotal (add 11 and 12) . . . . . . . . . $ 3794.88 2, GrOHIS sw c sos sme sms name bs $ 0.00 15. Subtotal (subtract 14 from 13). . . . . .. $ 3794.88 [1] Additional judgment debtors on next page 16. Interest after judgment (per filed affidavit 5. Judgment entered on (date): CCP 685.050) (not on GC 6103.5 fees)... $ 0.00 8/30/2017 17. Fee for issuance of writ . . ............ $ 25.00 6. [__] Judgment renewed on (dates): 18. Total (add 15, 16, and 17)... ......... $ 3819.88 19. Levying officer: 7. Notice of sale under this writ (a) Add daily interest from date of writ a. [/] has not been requested. (at the legal rate on 15) (not on b. [J has been requested (see next page). GEB103 5068) ok vs suv: F 1.04 (b) Pay directly to court costs included in 8. [__] Joint debtor information on next page. 11 and 17 (GC 6103.5, 68637; CCP 699.520(1)) . . ......... $ [SEAL] 20. [_] The amounts called for in items 11-19 are different for each debtor. SHERRI R. CARTER These amounts are stated for each debtor on ASR, Issued on cable] 20 2017) , Deputy ABARRON Clerk, ow os NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED: SEE NEXT PAGE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION. | Page 1 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California EJ-130 [Rev. January 1, 2012] WRIT OF EXECUTION Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 699.520, 712.010, 715.010 Goverment Code, § 6103.5 www.courts.ca.gov EXHIBIT 5 MC-012 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATEBARNO: 186420 FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME: Jeffrey A. Cohen FIRM NAME: | aw Office of Jeffrey A. Cohen STREET ADDRESS: 15338 Central Avenue crv: Chino STATE: CA ZIPCODE: 91710 TELEPHONE NO: 310-650-6015 FAX NO. : E-MAIL ADDRESS: ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Philip Markowitz, judgment creditor SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los Angeles STREET ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street MAILING ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street CITY AND ZIP CODE: | 0s Angeles 90012 BRANCH NAME: Stanley Mosk Courthouse Plaintiff: Blue Water Sunset, LLC Defendant: First View, LLC, et al. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF | S58 "Mosk: CREDIT, AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST BC316696 (12/12/14 judgment) 1. 2. 3. 4. [7] Postjudgment costs a. | claim the following costs after judgment incurred within the last two years (indicate if there are multiple items in any category): Amount (1) Preparing and issuing abstract of judgment $ (2) Recording and indexing abstract of judgment $ (3) Filing notice of judgment lien on personal property $ (4) Issuing writ of execution, to extent not satisfied by Code Civ. Proc., $ § 685.050 (specify county): (5) Levying officers fees, to extent not satisfied by Code Civ. Proc., $ § 685.050 or wage garnishment (6) Approved fee on application for order for appearance of judgment $ debtor, or other approved costs under Code Civ. Proc., § 708.110 et seq. (7) Attorney fees, if allowed by Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040 $ (8) Other: (Statute authorizing cost): $ (9) Total of claimed costs for current memorandum of costs (add items (1)-(8)) $ b. All previously allowed postjudgment costs $ c. Total of all postjudgment costs (add items a and b) $ [J Credits to interest and principal a. | acknowledge total payments to date in the amount of: $ (including returns on levy process and direct payments). The payments received are applied first to the amount of accrued interest, and then to the judgment principal (including postjudgment costs allowed) as follows: credit to accrued interest: $ ; credit to judgment principal $ b. Principal remaining due: The amount of judgment principal remaining due is $ . (See Code Civ. Proc., § 680.333.) [x7] Accrued interest remaining due: | declare interest accruing (at the legal rate) from the date of entry or renewal and on Oplgrces from the date of any partial satisfactions (or other credits reducing the principal) remaining due in the amount of $5258.31 . lamthe: [__] judgment creditor [1] agent for the judgment creditor [x] attorney for the judgment creditor. | have knowledge of the facts concerning the costs claimed above. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the costs claimed are correct, reasonable, and necessary, and have not been satisfied. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that #1€ fQregoing4s true and correct. Date: 4/26/2018 Jeffrey A. Cohen (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) - (SIGNATURE OF-DECLARANT) NOTICE TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR If this memorandum of costs is filed at the same time as an application for a writ of execution, any statutory costs, not exceeding $100 in aggregate and not already allowed by the court, may be included in the writ of execution. The fees sought under this memorandum may be disallowed by the court upon a motion to tax filed by the debtor, notwithstanding the fees having been included in the writ of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.070(e).) A motion to tax costs claimed in this memorandum must be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.070(c).) Page 1 of 2 Form Adopld for Mandatory Use MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT, Code of ii Procedure, Judicial Council of California §§ 685.040, 685.070, 695.220 MC-012 [Rev. January 1, 2018] ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CREDIT, AND DECLARATION www. courts.ca.gov OF ACCRUED INTEREST MC-012 Short Title: CASE NUMBER: Blue Water Sunset, LLC v. First View, LLC, et al. PROOF OF SERVICE [x] Mail [J Personal Service 1. Atthe time of service | was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. My residence or business address is: 15338 Central Avenue, Chino CA 91710 3 [Xx] I mailed or personally delivered a copy of the Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest as follows (complete either a or b): a. [x] Mail. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mail occurred. (1) 1enclosed a copy in an envelope AND (a) [x] deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid. (b) [_] placed the envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown in items below following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. (2) The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: Yana Henriks, MCMURRAY HENRIKS LLP (a) Name of person served: Yana Henriks (b) Address on envelope: 5670 Wilshire Bivd., Suite 1450, Los Angeles CA 90036 (c) Date of mailing: 4/26/2018 (d) Place of mailing (city and state): Chino Hills, California b. [__] Personal delivery. | personally delivered a copy as follows. (1) Name of person served: (2) Address where delivered: . (3) Date delivered: (4) Time delivered: | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 4/26/2018 Jeffrey A. Cohen ee (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) MC-012 Rev. January 1, 2018] MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AFTER JUDGMENT, Page 2of2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CREDIT, AND DECLARATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST -Save this form For your protection and privacy, please press the Clear This Form button after you have printed the form. EXHIBIT 6 LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY A. COHEN JEFFREY A. COHEN, ESQ. 15338 CENTRAL AVENUE - CHINO CA 91710 TELEPHONE (310) 650-6015 E-MAIL: jac@cohen-lawfirm.com Page I of 2 May 24, 2018 VIA FEDEX OVERNIGHT Yana Henriks McMurray Henriks LLP 5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1450 Los Angeles CA 90036 RE Philip Markowitz v. Blue Water Sunset, LLC, et al., LASC BC670741 Dear Ms. Henriks, As you know, on April 20, 2018 the Court entered a money judgment for attorneys’ fees in favor of your client, Blue Water Sunset, LLC (“BWS”), and against plaintiff Philip Markowitz, in the amount of thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000.00). Enclosed is a copy of the April 20, 2018 Judgment. And as we previously discussed, Philip Markowitz has two (2) prior money judgments against BWS, to-wit: Judgment dated December 12, 2014 in the principal amount of $15,603.93 (for costs) in the matter of BWS v First View, LLC, et al., LASC BC316696; and a Judgment dated August 30, 2017 in the same matter (BC316696) for costs on appeal in the principal amount of $3,794.88. Copies of the two judgments are also enclosed. On April 27, 2018, Mr. Markowitz filed a Memorandum of Costs After Judgment [Form MC-012] on the December 12, 2014 judgment claiming post-judgment interest totaling $5,258.31. A copy of this Memorandum of Costs is enclosed. On May 14, 2018, Mr. Markowitz filed a Memorandum of Costs After Judgment [Form MC-012] on the August 30, 2017 judgment claiming post-judgment costs of $25.00 and post-judgment interest totaling $264.08. A copy of this Memorandum of Costs is also enclosed. The total amount due Mr. Markowitz on the prior judgments therefore amount to $24,946.20 [which is the total principal and post-judgment costs/interest on the two judgments]. Furthermore, BWS’ April 20, 2018 Judgment accrues post-judgment interest at the legal rate of 10% per annum, which amounts to $8.77/day. There are forty (40) days from April 20, 2018 to May 30, 2018, which amounts to post-judgment interest of LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY A. COHEN JEFFREY A. COHEN, ESQ. 15338 CENTRAL AVENUE CHINO CA 91710 TELEPHONE (310) 650-6015 E-MAIL: jac@cohen-lawfirm.com Page 2 of 2 $350.80". The total amount due on the April 20" judgment as of May 30, 2018 is therefore $32,350.80 (before the application of offsets). After application of the offset amount of $24,946.20, the amount due to satisfy the April 20, 2018 judgment is $7,404.60 - as of May 30, 2018. Enclosed is a Cashier’s Check from Philip Markowitz to BWS in the amount of $7,420.00 as payment for the April 20, 2018 Judgment. The over-payment of $15.00 is to cover the cost of the notary for the satisfaction of judgment, which is enclosed along with a self-addressed stamped envelope for its return to my office. If BWS also wants satisfactions of judgment on the two prior judgments, please advise. Mr. Markowitz reserves all rights, including the right to seek entry of satisfaction of judgment and associated costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 724.080. Very truly yours, s/JEFFREY A. COHEN Jeffrey A. Cohen Enclosures ! Mr. Markowitz waives any over-payment of post-judgment of interest. (See April 20, 2018 order, which states that interest begins to accrue on April 30, 2018.) PURPOSE/REMITTER: PHILIP MARKOWITZ 0Obank cAsHIER's CHECK PAY SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS TO THE op § Ey ORDER OF: BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC Location: 6710 Chino Hills Albertsons U.S. Bank National Association Minneapolis, MN 55480 HARLAND CLARKE 20745 (01/13) 50069938 RTO OR OR A ORR RRR CR RS RR A RR RR PO ~ SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS 0Bbank casHers CHECK No. No. 6710503299 1222 DATE: MAY 24, 2018 NON NEGOTIABLE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE *E?L0503299 wid disB2anisiLi0023q53° 2 A 5 ] TE ih 2 TE 3 © ? I] EXHIBIT 7 LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY A. COHEN JEFFREY A. COHEN, ESQ. 15338 CENTRAL AVENUE CHINO CA 91710 TELEPHONE (310) 650-6015 E-MAIL: jac@cohen-lawfirm.com Page 1 of 2 May 24, 2018 VIA FEDEX OVERNIGHT Yana Henriks McMurray Henriks LLP 5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1450 Los Angeles CA 90036 RE Philip Markowitz v. Bluc Water Sunset, LLC, et al., LASC BC670741 Dear Ms. Henriks, As you know, on April 20, 2018 the Court entered a money judgment for attorneys’ fees in favor of your client, Blue Water Sunset, LLC (“BWS”), and against plaintiff Philip Markowitz, in the amount of thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000.00). Enclosed is a copy of the April 20, 2018 Judgment. And as we previously discussed, Philip Markowitz has two (2) prior money judgments against BWS, to-wit: Judgment dated December 12, 2014 in the principal amount of $15,603.93 (for costs) in the matter of BWS v First View, LLC, et al., LASC BC316696; and a Judgment dated August 30, 2017 in the same matter (BC316696) for costs on appeal in the principal amount of $3,794.88. Copies of the two judgments are also enclosed. On April 27, 2018, Mr. Markowitz filed a Memorandum of Costs After Judgment [Form MC-012] on the December 12, 2014 judgment claiming post-judgment interest totaling $5,258.31. A copy of this Memorandum of Costs is enclosed. On May 14, 2018, Mr. Markowitz filed a Memorandum of Costs After Judgment [Form MC-012] on the August 30, 2017 judgment claiming post-judgment costs of $25.00 and post-judgment interest totaling $264.08. A copy of this Memorandum of Costs is also enclosed. The total amount due Mr. Markowitz on the prior judgments therefore amount to $24,946.20 [which is the total principal and post-judgment costs/interest on the two judgments]. Furthermore, BWS’ April 20, 2018 Judgment accrues post-judgment interest at the legal rate of 10% per annum, which amounts to $8.77/day. There are forty (40) days from April 20, 2018 to May 30, 2018, which amounts to post-judgment interest of LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY A. COHEN JEFFREY A. COHEN, ESQ. 15338 CENTRAL AVENUE CHINO CA 91710 TELEPHONE (310) 650-6015 E-MAIL: jac@cohen-lawfirm.com Page 2 of 2 $350.80". The total amount due on the April 20™ judgment as of May 30, 2018 is therefore $32,350.80 (before the application of offsets). After application of the offset amount of $24,946.20, the amount due to satisfy the April 20, 2018 judgment is $7,404.60 - as of May 30, 2018. Enclosed is a Cashier’s Check from Philip Markowitz to BWS in the amount of $7,420.00 as payment for the April 20, 2018 Judgment. The over-payment of $15.00 is to cover the cost of the notary for the satisfaction of judgment, which is enclosed along with a self-addressed stamped envelope for its return to my office. If BWS also wants satisfactions of judgment on the two prior judgments, please advise. Mr. Markowitz reserves all rights, including the right to seck entry of satisfaction of judgment and associated costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 724.080. Very truly yours, s/ JEFFREY A. COHEN Jeffrey A. Cohen Enclosures : Mr. Markowitz waives any over-payment of post-judgment of interest. (See April 20, 2018 order, which states that interest begins to accrue on April 30, 2018.) PURPOSE/REMITTER: PHILIP MARKOWITZ 0B5bank CASHIER'S CHECK No. 6710503299 1222 DATE: MAY 24, 2018 PAY SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS AND 00 CENTS oRDER OF: BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC fort oo a. ) Location: 6710 Chino Hills Albertsons NON NEGOTIABLE Us5 Bask Nations Assregacion AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Minneapolis, MN 55480 HARLAND CLARKE 20745 (01/13) 50069938 a RO RL BE OR BR BR BRR RS RR RP RR CR A RSS SK T0bank CASHIER'S CHECK *E?M0503 299 wie diSB2 an i53ILL0023953 EXHIBIT 8 Law Orrices OF Loyst P. FLETCHER 555 WEST 5TH STReeT, 34TH FLooR Los AngeLes, CA 80013 Loyst Fletcher Jr. Tel: (424) 231-2864 Of Counsel Fax: (213) 402-7663 Licensed in Michigan loyst@Ipfletcherlaw.com November 30, 2018 Yana Henriks, Esq. VIA U.S. MAIL McMurray Henriks LLP 5670 Wilshire Blvd.,Suite 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Re: Philip Markowitz v. Blue Water Sunset, LLC, et al. LASC BC670741 Dear Ms Henriks: This letter shall serve as Philip Markowitz’ (Mr. Markowitz) formal demand that Blue Water Sunset, LLC (BWS) file a satisfaction of judgment in this matter within 15 days of receipt of this notice, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050. Mr. Markowitz demands that BWS (1) file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court; and (2) execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to my office. As delineated in Jeffrey A. Cohen, Esq.’s correspondence to you dated May 24, 2018, his transmission of a payment of $7,420.00 for BWS to your office on or about May 25, 2018, on behalf of Mr. Markowitz, is a full satisfaction of the April 20, 2018 judgment against Mr. Markowitz as follows: AMOUNT OWED BY MR. MARKOWITZ 1) BWS’ April 20, 2018, money judgment of attorneys fees against Mr. Markowitz: $32,000.00. 2) Accrued interest on this judgment from April 20, 2018, to May 30, 2018: $350.80 TOTAL: $32,350.80. OFFSETS DUE MR. MARKOWITZ Mr. Markowitz had the following offsets (as of May 30, 2018), totaling $24,946.20: 1) Costs awarded Mr. Markowitz for the December 12, 2014, judgment against BWS in BC316696: $15,603.93; 2) Costs awarded Mr. Markowitz for the August 30, 2017, judgment against BWS in the appeal of BC316696: $3,794.88; 3) Post-judgment costs and interest due Mr. Markowitz for the December 12, 2014, judgment: $5,258.31; and 4) Post-judgment costs and interest due Mr. Markowitz for the August 30, 2017, judgment: 8200 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, Tel: (323) 653-6941, Fax: (323) 6563-6942 Yana Henriks, Esq. November 30, 2018 Page 2 $289.08. SUMMARY $32,350.80 -Judgment and interest -$24.946.20 -Offsets =$7,404.60. Total due' Your office maintains that Mr. Markowitz was not awarded the costs and interests applied as offsets above, but the record is clear that he was. In fact, Mr. Cohen sent you copies of the specific court records in support of the offsets, yet you continue to dispute the issue and refuse to file the satisfaction of judgment. The parties’ extensive meet and confer exchanges have not resolved the issue, so at this point, if your office does not file the satisfaction of judgment in accordance with this demand, we will have not choice but to file a Motion to Compel the Execution of the Satisfaction of Judgment and seek associated costs and attorneys fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 724.080. California Code of Civil Procedure §724.050(b) requires this demand include the following statement: “Important warning. If this judgment has been satisfied, the law requires that you comply with this demand not later than 15 days after you receive it. If a court proceeding is necessary to compel you to comply with this demand, you will be required to pay my reasonable attorney's fees in the proceeding if the court determines that the judgment has been satisfied and that you failed to comply with the demand. In addition, if the court determines that you failed without just cause to comply with this demand within the 15 days allowed, you will be liable for all damages I sustain by reason of such failure and will also forfeit one hundred dollars to me.” Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF LOYST P. FLETCHER By: Loyal P Bldcle Loyst P. Fletcher, Esq. LPF/idi 1. (The total transmitted to your office was $7,420.00 not $7,404.60, because it included an overpayment of $15 to cover the cost of the notarization of the satisfaction of judgment) EXHIBIT 9 NRIKS - Nd a %E 4% S, Li * Changing The World One Case At A Time December 3, 2018 VIA U.S. MAIL, ELECTRONIC MAIL, AND FACSIMILE Loyst P. Fletcher, Esq. Loyst@lpfletcherlaw.com LAW OFFICES OF LOYST P. FLETCHER 555 West 5 Street, 34" floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Tel: (424) 231-2864 Fax: (213) 402-7663 RE: Philip Markowitz et al. v. Blue Water Sunset, LLC et al., LASC BC670741; and related case LASC BC316696 Dear Mr. Fletcher, I am in receipt of your letter dated December 3, 2018 demanding that Defendant Blue Water Sunset, LLC file within 15 days an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment with regard to the April 20, 2018 money judgment obtained by that party against your client Philip Markowitz. Firstly, your client has not satisfied all of his obligations with respect to case no. BC670741. He still owes $5,228.67 to Defendants Randy H. McMurray, Esq. and Yana Henriks, Esq. and $449.50 to each separately (with post-judgment interest from 8/3/18 on each sum) on the money judgment entered against him on August 3, 2018. (See Attached.) Secondly, despite my several requests, neither you nor Mr. Cohen have provided any authority for your position that the memoranda of costs and minute orders provided by Mr. Cohen are equivalent a money judgment against my client in case no. BC316696. As you know, this is not a matter of splitting hairs: the purpose for requiring a signed judgment is to lend finality to the proceedings and to leave no uncertainty as to the outcome. Your clients’ refusal to carry out the simple task of obtaining a signed judgment for costs in case no. BC316696 creates the risk that your clients might claim in the future that some different, larger sum is owed in the case. It furthermore deprives my client of its right to have an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment entered for its benefit in case no. BC316696. This matter can be easily resolved within the arbitrary 15-day deadline you have imposed by your forwarding to us all of the following as soon as possible: 1. A signed judgment for costs in case no. BC316696 (or legal authority showing that such a judgment is not needed); 2. Your clients’ executed Acknowledgment of Satisfaction as to the judgment in case no. BC316696; and 5670 Wilshire Boulevard ® Suite 1450 ¢ Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: 323.931.6200 © Facsimile: 323.931.9521 » www.Law-MH.com Fletcher December 3, 2018 Page 2 3. With regard to your clients’ remaining obligations in case no. BC670741, a check in the amount of $5,678.17 made out to “Yana G. Henriks” and a separate check in the amount of $449.50 made out to “Randy H. McMurray.” Upon receipt of these items, a fully executed Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment for all three defendants in case no. BC670741 will be filed and forwarded to you forthwith. This matter should be swiftly resolved as to both actions to the full satisfaction of both parties. Please contact me immediately if you have any questions or wish to discuss things further. Sincerely, MCMURRAY HENRIKS, LLP Yana G. Henriks Dictated. Enclosure: 8/3/18 Judgment OO «© ~~ O v Wn pb W N NY N N N r m e e p e e t p k pe d e l pe d fe a WwW NN = O L 0 0 ~ I O N h h P W N = © nN =~ eo oe ® 2 Jn? JE tho BN N N N ce 3 O v Wn | | FILED Tsar. Rel 8 Sherri g oe i or R. ‘arte Xecutive Officer/Cler JUL { 3 2018 Twyla Freeman dep FILING WINDOW SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PHILIP MARKOWITZ, an individual; RAIL Case No. BC670741 PROP, LLC, a California Limited Liability [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Rita Company; and FOUR STAR GENERAL Miller, Dept. 16] PROPERTIES, LLC, a California Limited ’ } Lagbiligr Comping; EBPe#FD] JUDGMENT FOR FEES Plaintiffs, AND COSTS IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS RANDY H. MCMURRAY, Vv. ; ESQ. AND YANA HENRIKS, ESQ. BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; THE COCHRAN Action filed: August 3, 2017 FIRM, a Professional Corporation; RANDY H. MCMURRAY, ESQ., an individual; YANA HENRIKS, ESQ., an individual; KOUJAKAIAN TERENIK, INC., a Professional Corporation; PHILIP DAPEER, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive; Defendants. The Special Motion to Strike the plaintiffs’ Complaint brought by defendant Blue Water Sunset, LLC, and joined by defendants Randy H. McMurray, Esq., Yana Henriks, Esq., and Philip Dapeer, having been granted and the Complaint having been dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants, and judgment having been entered in favor defendant Yana Henriks, Esq. on December 12,2017 and in favor of defendant Randy H. McMurray, Esq. on January 5, 2018, and Defendants Randy H. McMurray, Esq. and Yana Henriks, Esq. each having filed separate memoranda of costs on January 31, 2018, each for the sum of $435.00, and plaintiffs having filed no [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT FOR FEES AND COSTS IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS RANDY H. MCMURRAY, ESQ. AND YANA HENRIKS, ESQ. Ov 0 3 O N nn R A W o N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 1m ie 26 hc objection to the same, and © The joint motion for fees and costs of defendants Randy H. McMurray, Esq. and Yana Henriks, Esq. having come on regularly for hearing on July 13, 2018 in Department 16 of the above mentioned court, attorney Victor K. Sapphire, Esq. appearing for defendants Randy H. McMurray, Esq. and Yana G. Henriks, Esq., and defendant Yana Henriks also appearing in person, and plaintiffs not making an appearance, the Court having reviewed the supporting and opposing papers and oral argument, and good cause appearing thereon, NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants RANDY H. MCMURRAY, ESQ. and YANA HENRIKS, ESQ. shall jointly have and recover the sum of $5,060.00 from and against plaintiffs PHILIP MARKOWITZ; RAIL PROP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and FOUR STAR GENERAL PROPERTIES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and all of them, jointly and severally, with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of the entry of this judgment until paid. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant RANDY H. MCMURRAY, ESQ. shall separately have and recover the additional sum of $435.00 from and against plaintiffs PHILIP MARKOWITZ; RAIL PROP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and FOUR STAR GENERAL PROPERTIES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and all of them, jointly and severally, with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of the entry of this judgment until paid. Hi ni mn min IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant YANA HENRIKS, ESQ. shall separately have and recover the additional sum of $435.00 from and against plaintiffs PHILIP MARKOWITZ; RAIL PROP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT FOR FEES AND COSTS IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS RANDY H. MCMURRAY, ESQ. AND YANA HENRIKS, ESQ. ; | i | -t vo i Oo 0 N N Un BR W N = r o No D O p O rN - - p t nd f d - f t - J d fd B W = O W 0 N N n d Ww BN e s OD 23 26 27 28 FOUR STAR GENERAL PROPERTIES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and all of them, jointly and severally, with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of the entry of this judgment until paid. IT IS SO ORDERED, DECREED, AND ADJUDGED. paren: S/7),8 By: Cg - Hon. Ritd Milter Judge of the Superior Court [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT FOR FEES AND COSTS IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS RANDY H. MCMURRAY, ESQ. AND YANA HENRIKS, ESQ. EXHIBIT 10 DEPARTMENT 34 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative, EE TY Re Trp ee Case Number: BC316696 Hearing Date: March 02, 2015 Dept: 34 Moving Party: Plaintiff Blue Water Sunset LLC (“plaintiff”) Resp. Party: Defendant Philip Markowitz (“Markowitz” or “defendant”) Superior ¢FILED ounty ¢ of Los y Agama Plaintiff's request to strike or tax the costs in item 1 is DENIED. MAR 02 2015 Sherri R, . Plaintiff's request to strike the costs in items 4 and 13 is GRANTED. By, 2 Cutive Officer/Clerk ’ ecilia Guerrero Deputy BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on June 4, 2004, against defendants asserting eleven causes of action. On April 14, 2009, plaintiff filed a fifth amended complaint ("5AC”) against defendants for: (1) judicial dissolution of First View LLC; (2) judicial dissolution of Rail Prop LLC; (3) appointment- of receiver for Rail Prop LLC; (4) judicial dissolution of Markowitz Investment Group LLC; (5) rescission of addendum to M.I.G. operating agreement; (6) fraud; (7) breach of contract; (8) breach of fiduciary duty; (9) refusal to make distribution; (10) accounting; and (11) declaratory relief. Plaintiff alleges it was and is a 50% member of defendants First View LLC ("FV"), Rail Prop LLC ("RP") and Markowitz Investment Group LLC ("MIG"); and defendant Philip Markowitz claims he was and is the other 50% member, which plaintiff disputes. (5AC § 9.) Defendant caused certain parcels of property belonging to RP to be titled under Four Star General Properties, LLC (“Four Star”), a limited liability company of which defendant Markowitz is the sole member and manager. (Id., 91 10-11.) Plaintiff alleges that Four Star should be declared the alter ego of RP and the parcels should be traceable to RB, due to admissions of the language inserted by Markowitz in the (deeds. (1d., 1 11.) Plaintiff also alleges that Four Star is the alter ego of Markowitz. (Id., § 12.) Plaintiff alleges that FV and Markowitz have failed to keep accurate books and records and have Jailed to file tax returns. (Id., § 14.) Plaintiff alleges that Markowitz is guilty of fraud, 5 “mismanagement, abuse of authority. (Id., § 17.) Plaintiff makes similar allegations about RP and IG. (See id., 11 20-21, 24-26, 33, 36.) "An July 15, 2001, plaintiff and Markowitz entered into a written agreement entitled “Addendum to Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of Markowitz Investment Group LLC,” whereby tthe parties promised to contribute certain assets as additional capital contributions to MIG. (Id., 9 139.) Plaintiff alleges that the representation made by Markowitz was a representation of a promise without the intent to perform. (Ibid.) Markowitz has failed and continues to fail to contribute to the MIG properties listed in the agreement. (Id., 50.) Plaintiff alleges Markowitz breached his fiduciary duties to plaintiff with respect to the operation and mananamant af tha 11 Ce (14 qq E5.KQ \ . On May 27, 2009, Markowitz filed an answer to plaintiff's fifth amended complaint, which asserted twenty-one affirmative defenses. On July 20 through 23, 2009, the Court, the Honorable Rex Heeseman presiding, held a bench trial to determine contract interpretation and related issues. The Court issued a decision on July 30, 2009, which found that pre-execution verbal representations concerning future contributions were barred by the parol evidence rule, but post-execution verbal representations were allowed to be presented at trial. The Court declined to decide issues as to fraud, waiver, estoppel, reliance, and related matters. On October 7, 2009, the Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to bring the action to trial within five years, finding that trial had commenced with the July 20, 2009, bench trial. A jury trial was to be held in February and March 2010, but the matter was stayed pending review of plaintiff's verified statement of disqualification. The stay was lifted on March 11, 2010. After several continuances, a jury trial was commenced on October 27, 2010, and continued into November 2010. On November 15, 2010, Judge Heeseman recognized that a verified statement of disqualification and request for reassignment had been filed. Judge Heeseman thereafter transferred the case to the Supervising Judge for reassignment. The case was reassigned to the Honorable Judge Ramona G. See. Judge See determined that the jury verdict rendered on November 4, 2010, was null and void and that the action would be re-tried, but that rulings made by Judge Heeseman prior to October 22, 2010, need not be vacated. (See Minute Order dated 12/2/2011.) A new trial date was set for June 29, 2012. Trial was eventually continued to April 30, 2013. This trial date was taken off calendar on March 19, 2013. On May 31, 2012, the Court ruled on plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication of causes of action asserted in Markowitz’s fourth amended cross-complaint. The Court granted the motion as to the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action. On July 3, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication of the third and seventh causes of action in the fourth amended cross-complaint, as well as the first, second, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth affirmative defenses in Markowitz’s answer to the fifth amended complaint. he Court granted the motion in its entirety on October 2, 2012, and an order was entered on (Qctober 26, 2012. on November 16, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication of the fourth, fifth, sixth, “Seventh, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, \Hventieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-third affirmative defenses in Markowitz’s “answer to the fifth amended ‘complaint. On March 21, 2013, Markowitz filed a motion for summary "Udgment/adjudication of plaintiff's fifth amended complaint. = 3 tAfter several continuances, the motions were heard on December 4, 2013. The Court amtited (plaintiff's motion as to all but the eighteenth affirmative defense. The Court denied defendant's motion because it was based on affirmative defenses that were not properly alleged in its answer. On January 24, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions against defendant. An Tuk 10 IN1A tha Cant heard anathar matinn bv nlaintiff for auummarv adiudication of Markowitz’s eighteenth affirmative defense. The Court denied the motion. The action proceeded to a court trial on September 18, 2014, on the single issue of whether plaintiff ever attained membership status in the LLCs by paying its $1,000.00 initial cash ° contribution into any of these LLCs. At the conclusion of plaintiff's presentation of evidence, ‘Markowitz moved for entry of judgment in his favor, and the Court granted the motion because plaintiff had failed to prove that it invested its initial capital contribution in any of the LLCs. The defaults entered against FirstView LLC, Rail Prop LLC, and Markowitz Investment Group LLC were vacated. Judgment was entered on December 12, 2014 in favor of all defendants and against plaintiff. On January 6, 2015, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to vacate the judgment. ANALYSIS: : Plaintiff seeks to strike or tax the costs requested by defendant in item numbers 1, 4, and 13. After judgment is entered, the prevailing party “who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of mailing of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a).) In turn, the losing party may file a motion to strike or tax costs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b).) Under California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1032, subd. (b), “Except as otherwise provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right under statute. (Davis v. KGO T.V., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 436, 439.) If the “prevailing party” requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subd. (b) are met, the trial court has no discretion to order each party to bear its own costs of suit. (Michell v. Olick (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1198.) Defendant is the prevailing party pursuant to the judgment in this action. During the hearing, “the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) “This procedure provides an orderly and efficient way of placing disputed costs at issue on a line item basis.” (612 South LLC v. Laconic Ltd. Partnership. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285.) or. .ITlhe mere filing of a motion to tax costs may be a “proper objection” to an item, the necessity of ..which appears doubtful, or which does not appear to be proper on its face. [Citation.] However, Lif the items appear to be proper charges the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that “the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant “fcitations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].” [Citations.] ies “The court's first determination, therefore, is whether the statute expressly allows the particular ~item, and whether it appears proper on its face. [Citation.] If so, the burden is on the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable. [Citation.] (Nelson, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 131.) Therefore, if the Court determines the costs are allowable and proper on their face, the burden is on plaintiff to show they are unreasonable or not necessary. Where the award of costs is discretionary, the burden is on defendant to establish that the costs wara raacnnahlae and noracecarv Item #1: Filing and motion fees Filing and motion fees are allowable costs. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(1).) Plaintiff argues that the filing and motion costs should be taxed in the amount of $720.00 because this amount was previously sought in an October 2007 cost memorandum submitted by defendant Four Star. Plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to support this argument. The only evidence provided is plaintiff's counsels conclusory declaration that the costs sought in October 2007 are not separated from the instant cost memorandum, and therefore the amount should be reduced. (See Henriks Decl., § 24.) This is not ‘enough to meet plaintiff's burden of showing that the costs are duplicative, unreasonable, or not necessary. Accordingly, plaintiff's request to strike or tax the costs in item 1 is DENIED. Item #4: Deposition costs Deposition costs are allowable. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(3).) To the extent that plaintiff once again argues that Markowitz should have separated the deposition costs sought in October 2007, this argument is not well taken because plaintiff again fails to provide sufficient evidence that Markowitz is seeking duplizetive costs. In his memorandum of costs, Markowitz states for item 4, “this 10-year-old case has substantial deposition costs covering the depositions of at least 7 individuals taking over 13 days. The incomplete records of the costs incurred in taking these depositions and obtaining copies of the transcripts result in a conservative estimated cost to defendant of $6000.” (See Memorandum of Costs, Exh. B.) Plaintiff disputes Markowitz’s claim that depositions were taken for “at least 7 individuals” in this action. (See Henriks Decl., § 26; Opp., p. 10:8-10.) Plaintiff's only evidence to support this dispute is plaintiff's counsel's declaration that only five people were deposed and Markowitz only noticed one of the depositions. Plaintiff's declaration is somewhat vague; in the declaration, counsel states "To my recollection the only deposition noticed and paid for by Markowitz was declarant's deposition that was already claimed in the October 31, 2007 memorandum of cost.” (Henriks Declaration, § 26.) This does not, by itself, establish that Markowitz did not incur or could hot have incurred the requested costs in relation to depositions. Given the length and complexity of this action, it is entirely reasonable that Markowitz incurred approximately $6,000.00 for the depositions. “However, it is defendant's burden to show the costs of these depositions. Defendant has ‘Bresented no evidence concerning deposition costs. As indicated above, Defendant indicates in a ‘cursory fashion in" his Memorandum of Costs that he does not have records of the depositions, but fthat they resulted “in a conservative estimated cost to defendant of $6000.” (See Memorandum of Costs, Exh. B.) = kn his opposition, Defendant states that "BWS takes similar issue with Markowitz’s reasonable estimate of $6000 for deposition costs in this case found in item 4. Again this is a reasonable and conservative estimate in light of multiple days of deposition for Victor Noval, and Yana Henriks, as well as deposition in Texas of Vito Rotuno, as well as depositions of Richard Schulz, Tania Noval, Expert Engle (2 sessions), Yossi Atta and others.” (Opp., p. 10:6-10.) The problem for defendant ic that ho hac nracantard nn avidanre nf thaca danncitinne: nn hille na dAatec - nat aven tha testimony of his counsel under penalty of perjury in a declaration. Argument of counsel is not evidence. Plaintiff's request to strike or tax the costs in item 4 is GRANTED. \ Item #13: Other Costs Defendant is seeking over $900,000.00 in costs for receivership expenses. These costs are not expressly allowed nor are they expressly prohibited. “An item not specifically allowable under subdivision (a) nor prohibited under subdivision (b) may nevertheless be recoverable in the discretion of the court if ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.’ ” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 [citing CCP § 1033.5(c)].) " ‘The court may assess the costs of a receivership against the fund or property in receivership or against the applicant for the receivership, or it may apportion them among the parties, depending upon circumstances.’ ” (Baldwin v. Baldwin (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 851, 856.) The assessment of receiver's costs and expenses is within the discretion of the court, and imposing the costs on the party “whose conduct made the appointment of a receiver necessary is proper.” (Luchs v. Ormsby (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 377, 389. See also Baldwin, 82 Cal.App.2d at p. 856 [the assessment of receivership costs is “clearly [a matter] of discretion”].) Here, the Court has previously determined that the appointment of a receiver was based on Markowitz's alleged mismanagement of Rail Prop, LLC. (See Minute Order, 1/10/08.) With the instant motion, there is ample evidence that the appointment of the receiver and much of the incurred costs were caused by the conduct of Markowitz. (See Henriks Decl., 19 3-6, 19-23, Exhs. 1-3, 13-17; Statement of Receiver, pp. 2-6.) Moreover, there is no showing that the receivership costs were incurred by Markowitz, as opposed to the LLCs. “It is fundamental that a corporation is a legal entity that is distinct from its shareholders.” (Grosset v. Wenaas (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1100, 1108.) Markowitz provides no evidence which suggests that he personally paid or was charged for the receiver, nor does he provide evidence establishing a unity of interest between him and the LLCs. Plaintiff's request to strike the costs in item 13 is GRANTED Tentative Rulings - Main Menu Home =2 Tia, (? Lr S 1 8 7 EXHIBIT 11 Law OFrrices OF LoysT P. FLETCHER 555 WEsT 5TH STREET, 34TH FLOOR Los AngEeLEs, CA 90013 Loyst Fletcher Jr. Tel: (424) 231-2864 Liconasd ich an Fax: (213) 402-7663 g loyst@Ipfletcherlaw.com December 6, 2018 Yana Henriks, Esq. VIA U.S. MAIL McMurray Henriks LLP 5670 Wilshire Blvd.,Suite 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Re: Philip Markowitz v. Blue Water Sunset, LLC, et al.. LA SC BC670741 Dear Ms Henriks: This letter is in response to your correspondence dated December 3, 2018 , regarding Philip Markowitz’ (Mr. Markowitz) December 3, 2018, formal demand that Blue Water Sunset, LLC (BWS) file a satisfaction of judgment in this matter. In that correspondence you bring up a separate issue, that Mr. Markowitz h ad not paid a prior money judgment that you and Randy H. McMurray obtained against hi m on or about August 3, 2018. We had not paid the amount earlier because the parties were deep in dispute as to the respective monies owed each other as a result of the various judgments and costs awarded against each other. Now that we have made some progress in resolving our dispute, we are remitting the money forthwith in a gesture of good faith, hoping that soon the remainder of the amounts in dispute may also be resolved. The checks will be in the amount you requested, which, including post-judgment interest, are $5678.17 to you, and $449.50 to Mr. McMurray. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF LOYST P. FLETCHER By: Lot PP Eltetee Loyst P. Fletcher, Esq. LPF/idi 8200 Wilshire Blivd., Ste. 200, Beverly Hills, CA 80211, Tel: (323) 653-6941, Fax: (323) 653-6942 OO 0 ~~ A N wn bk W N N O N N N N N N N O N m m e m me d be m p t pe t pe e d e d Ww NN O N nn bh W N me O N O 0 N N N R W NN - Oo PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; I certify and declare as follows: I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and nota gary to the within action; my business address is 555 West 5* Street, 34™ Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90013. On February 11, 2019, I served on the party(ies) of record in this action the foregoing document(s) described as: PLAINTIFF PHILIP MARKOWITZ’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND FOR AN OFFSET FROM DEFENDANT BLUE WATER SUNSET, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LOYST P FLETCHER; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. COHEN; [PROPOSED] ORDER by placing _X the original ___ a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope as follows: Randy H. McMurray, Esq. ; Yana G. Henriks, Attorney for Defendant(s): =. . RANDY H. MCMURRAY, ESQ. and McMurray Henriks, LLP YANA G. HENRIKS. ESQ. 5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1450 Los angeles, CA 90036 Tel: (323) 931-6200; Fax: (323) 931-9521 Victor K. Sapp, Esq. Attorney for Defendant(s): Law Office of Victor Sapphire, Inc. RANDY H. MCMURRAY, ESQ. and 7190 Sunset Boulevard., Suite 116 YANA G. HENRIKS. ESQ. Los angeles, CA 90046 Tel: (323) 449-7872 [X] BY MAIL/EMAIL - as follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of business. Iam aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [1] BY PERSONAL SERVICE - I caused the aforementioned document(s) to be personally served upon the addressee(s) as indicated above. [ ] BY FACSIMILE - On , 2019, at 4:40 p.m., I caused the aforementioned document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile transmission, from a facsimile transmission machine whose telefax number is , upon the addressee(s) as indicated above. The above described transmission was reported as complete without error by a transmission report issued by the facsimile transmission machine upon which the said transmission was made immediately following the transmission. A true and correct copy of the said transmission report is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. [ X] STATE - I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Mariana Sanginitto (L A ‘ (name) (signature) PROOF OF SERVICE
