Filed December 6, 2007
To allow the defendant to pocket the difference would reward the defendant for his wrongdoing. Heckmann, 168 Cal. App. 3d at 135, 214 Cal. Rptr. at 188 (citations, punctuation omitted). This same logic plainly supports an equitable accounting, which would naturally go hand in hand with demonstrating that a defendant had complied with its duties as a constructive trustee. Federal jurisprudence may or may not recognize a presumption of irreparable harm supporting an accounting and a constructive trust.
Filed October 9, 2009
“An injunction against disposing of property is proper if disposal would render the final judgment ineffectual.” Heckmann, 168 Cal. App. 3d at 136, 214 Cal. Rptr. at 189. “[T]he equitable remedy of constructive trust would be ineffectual if the trustee were permitted to defeat recovery by wrongfully permitting the res to be dissipated [or] if plaintiffs are unable to trace the trust property into its succeeding transfigurements.”
Filed May 22, 2017
An injunction restraining the disposal of money, i.e. the imposition of a constructive trust, is proper because the City’s conduct threatens the Case 2:15-cv-02502-KJM-CKD Document 42-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 20 of 22 R O S E L A W , A P C 11 33 5 G O LD E X P R E S S D R IV E , S U IT E 1 35 G O LD R IV E R , C A LI F O R N IA 9 56 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2:15-CV- 02502-KJM- CKD PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST 17 disposal of the Trust Fund during litigation, thereby rendering the judgment ineffectual. (See Heckman v Ahmanson (1985) 168 Cal. App.3d 119, 136.) IV.
Filed April 21, 2016
[Citation.]" (Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co. (1969) 1 Cal.3d 93, 107, 81 Cal. Rptr. 592.) [*29] A shareholderplaintiff in a derivative action sues on behalf of the corporation and in that capacity owes a fi- duciary duty to the corporation and its shareholders. (Whitten v. Dabney (1915) 171 Cal. 621, 630-631; Heckmann v. Ahmanson (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 119, 128-129, 214 Cal. Rptr. 177, see Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 541, 549 [69 S. Ct. 1221, 93 L. Ed. 1528].) “He is a trustee pure and simple, seeking in the name of another a recovery for wrongs that have been committed against that other. His position in the litigation is in every legal sense the precise equivalent of that of the guardian ad litem.
Filed October 2, 2012
............... 15 Federal Statutes 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) ........................................................................................................ 16 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) .................................................................................................... 21 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3) .................................................................................................... 16 Federal Rules C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-3 ......................................................................................................... 22 F.R.C.P. Rule 8 ............................................................................................................. 24 State Cases Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.3d 1019 (1991) ............. 13 First Nationwide Savings v. Perry, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1657 (1992) .............................. 23 GHK Assoc. v. Mayer Group, Inc., 224 Cal. App. 3d 856 (1990) ............................... 24 Heckmann v. Ahmanson, 168 Cal. App. 3d 119 (1985) ............................................... 24 Hernandez v. Lopez, 180 Cal. App. 4th 932 (2009) ..................................................... 23 Hirsch v. Bank of Am., 107 Cal. App. 4th 708 (2003) ..................................................
Filed May 17, 2010
Fold, Inc. v . Slautterback Corp., 82 Cal. App. 4th 1018 (2000) ...............................................................................25 Greenstein v. Peters, 2009 WL 722067 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2009} ..........................................................3 Grunenthal GmbH v. Hotz, 712 F.2d 421 (9th Cir, 1983) ................................................................................16 Gutierrez v. Givens, 1 F. Supp . 2d i077 ( S.D. Cal . 1998} .....................................................................14 Heckmann v. Ahmanson, 168 Cal. App. 3d 119 (1985 ) ................................................................................24 -111 _ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS RICO AND CREDITOR CLAIMS Case 2:04-cv-09049-DOC -RNB Document 7870 Filed 05/17/10 Page 4 of 33
Filed March 5, 2008
To allow the defendant to pocket the difference would reward the defendant for his wrongdoing. Heckmann v. Ahmanson, 168 Cal. App. 3d 119, 135, 214 Cal. Rptr. 177, 188 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). As time goes on, it will become more and more difficult to trace these funds – the evidentiary trail to those funds will grow cold.