Housing Authority of the City of Glendale v. Mithaiwala CA2/5

INTRODUCTION

Defendants and appellants1 (defendants) appeal from the trial court‟s order appointing a receiver in two related cases brought by plaintiffs and respondents City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles) and City of Glendale and its Housing Authority (Glendale).2 According to defendants, there was no admissible evidence to support the order appointing the receiver; the receiver appointed by the trial court was not qualified to serve in that capacity due to conflicts of interest; and the order appointing the receiver was overbroad because it authorized the dissolution of their assets without a trial and included individual assets not subject to the receivership. We hold that because substantial evidence supported the trial court‟s order appointing a receiver, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering that order; the trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing as receiver in the Cities‟ actions the same receiver who had previously acted as receiver in the marital dissolution action between Karimi and Jannki; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by authorizing the receiver to marshall and liquidate receivership assets or by including the assets…