Heckmann v. Ahmanson

7 Citing briefs

  1. Lofton v. Bank of America Corporation et al

    MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    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.

  2. DuFour et al v. Be, LLC et al

    MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    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.”

  3. City of South Lake Tahoe Retirees Association v. City of South Lake Tahoe

    MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

    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.

  4. HERNANDEZ v. RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.

    Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice

    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.

  5. CYBERsitter LLC v. Google Inc et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case Google Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Pursuant to Rule 12

    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) ..................................................

  6. Carter Bryant v. Mattel Inc

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motions of the MGA Parties and IGWT 826 to Dismiss RICO and Creditor Claims [PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION]

    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

  7. Lofton v. Bank of America Corporation et al

    Memorandum in Opposition to CCI's conditional motions to stay discovery and continue Lofton's Motion for Preliminary Injunction

    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.