Davis

Sumitomo Bank v. Davis

Good Law
4 Cal. App. 4th 1306·6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 381
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 25, 1992Docket Nos. H008564, H008739California3,072 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stone, J.

1. Introduction

Stan Davis and Metropolis Capital Corporation, partners in a partnership owning commercial realty in San Jose (partners), appeal from an order appointing a receiver to manage the property during this action brought by Sumitomo Bank of California (Bank) to obtain judicial foreclosure of a first deed of trust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (g).) Partners have also petitioned for writ relief from this order and from an order overruling their demurrer. We dispose of both the appeal and the writ petition in this opinion.

Partners contend the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the property because a federal court has already assumed jurisdiction over the same property in a prior federal action seeking judicial foreclosure of third deeds of trust. Partners alternatively contend the trial court abused its discretion by not abating this action. Finally, partners contend they were denied due process when the trial court did not continue the hearing on the appointment of a receiver to allow them to respond to reply declarations and documents filed by Bank two days before the hearing. For the reasons stated below, we will deny writ relief and will…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.