65 Cal.App.5th 858
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- County sued Kiran Rawat and Raj Singh seeking injunctive relief and appointment of a receiver under Health & Safety Code § 17980.7 to abate code violations at two Sacramento properties.
- The trial court appointed J. Benjamin McGrew as receiver in October 2013; defendants (through counsel Keith Oliver) initially appealed the appointment but that appeal was dismissed by this Court for misconduct related concerns.
- The County dismissed its complaint without prejudice in March 2015; the receiver later filed a final account and petition for discharge in May 2018.
- The trial court approved the receiver’s final account, exonerated the surety, and discharged the receiver; Raj Singh (pro se) appealed the discharge order raising jurisdictional, notice, signature, and conspiracy claims among others.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: it held dismissal did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to settle the receiver’s account, rejected Singh’s service and conspiracy claims as unsupported or forfeited, and declined to relitigate the prior appointment order given the earlier dismissal of the appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County) | Defendant's Argument (Singh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction after voluntary dismissal | Dismissal of complaint does not divest the court of power to settle receiver’s account and discharge the receiver | Dismissal of County’s complaint deprived the court of jurisdiction to settle the receiver’s final account and discharge him | Court held dismissal does not deprive jurisdiction; receiver remains accountable until court order discharging him (affirmed) |
| Notice to interested parties for final account | Notice was served on known interested parties (Singh, Rawat, receiver, IRS, insurer, code enforcement) as required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1184(c) | Additional persons/entities (Oliver, unidentified occupants, creditors) were not served and should have been | Court held Singh failed to show those persons were known claimants who required notice; Oliver was disbarred and could not represent defendants; claim rejected |
| Adequacy/signature of final account; County Counsel’s role | Receiver’s final account adequately described receiver’s actions; receiver signed the account; County Counsel assisted but did not represent the receiver | Account was not a separate sufficiently detailed document, not signed, and County Counsel represented the receiver (conspiracy) | Court found these arguments undeveloped or unsupported; record shows receiver signed; conspiracy/disqualification claims forfeited for lack of record/legal support |
| Challenges to appointment and miscellaneous allegations | Prior appeal of the appointment was dismissed, leaving the appointment order intact; many post-judgment claims lacked record/authority | Various attacks on appointment, alleged misconduct, criminal acts, or procedural errors | Court held it cannot reconsider the appointment order after dismissal of the prior appeal; treated many other claims as forfeited for lack of citation/argument; affirmed discharge |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Bank v. Madera Fruit & Land Co., 124 Cal. 525 (1899) (dismissal of action does not automatically discharge a court-appointed receiver; court retains power to settle receiver’s accounts)
- Hanno v. Superior Court (Santa Barbara County), 30 Cal.App.2d 639 (1939) (receiver remains accountable to appointing court after dismissal; receiver must be discharged by court order)
- People v. Riverside University, 35 Cal.App.3d 572 (1973) (in examination of a receiver’s account, court assumes honesty until contrary appears; unsubstantiated objections insufficient)
- City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 905 (2008) (receivership determinations are afforded considerable deference on review)
- Macmorris Sales Corp. v. Kozak, 249 Cal.App.2d 998 (1967) (objectors to a receiver’s verified account must produce evidence supporting objections)
- People v. Parmar, 86 Cal.App.4th 781 (2001) (disqualification of prosecuting authority under Penal Code § 1424 discussed; distinguished on facts when applied to public-agency funding of prosecutors)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (1970) (appellate courts presume correctness of the trial court’s orders; appellant bears burden to show error)