Morton vs. Chevron

Additionally, this motion has been pending for more than two months, during which time Mira and Anna have not been able to agree to any path forward— despite Anna’s testimony that she is “still willing to cooperate with Mira to find a reasonable resolution to the Hanmi Loan situation.” (ROA 1368, Anna Decl. ¶ 15.)

Anna does not object to the qualifications or rates proposed by Mira’s proposed receiver, Kevin Singer. Mr. Singer has presented a declaration with his qualifications and also declares that he is not “(i) associated with, or employed by, any party in this matter or any attorney in this matter; (ii) interested in the property or in this action; or (iii) related to any judge of this Court by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree.” (Singer Decl. ¶ 5.)

Where a Court proceeds to appoint a receiver, “[t]he receiver shall give an undertaking to the State of California, in such sum as the court or judge may direct, to the effect that the receiver will faithfully discharge the duties of receiver in the action and obey the order of the court therein.” (Code Civ. Proc., §567, subd. (b).) Mira proposes a bond amount of $10,000, to which Anna does not object. The Court therefore adopts the proposed amount.

In the exercise of its discretion, the court GRANTS the motion for appointment of a limited receiver, and appoints Kevin Sanger as the limited receiver. The court orders that a $10,000 bond be posted.

Plaintiff to give notice. 108 Morton vs. Chevron, Motion - Other (Alternate Service) – VACATED

Plaintiff, Robert Morton, moves for an order allowing alternate service by mail and email.

On November 13, 2025, this case came on for hearing for a Case Management Conference. (See ROA 12.) There was no appearance by any party, and the Court set an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal/Sanctions for Failure to Appear and Failure to Serve, providing the following

warning: “If no appearances are made at the scheduled hearing, the court may dismiss the matter without any further notice.” (ROA 12.) The Clerk was ordered to give notice and the Clerk gave notice by mail on Plaintiff on November 5, 2025. (ROA 13.)

This motion was filed on December 1, 2025. (ROA 14.)

On March 9, 2026, plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing for the Order to Show Cause. (ROA 17.) The Court therefore ordered the entire action dismissed without prejudice. (ROA 17.) The Clerk was ordered to give notice and the Clerk gave notice by mail on Plaintiff on March 11, 2026. (ROA 18.) The morion to order alternate service must therefore be vacated. The Court orders clerk to give notice. 109 Physician Assistant Demurrer to Complaint – OVERRULED Specialists-California, Motion to Strike Complaint – DENIED Inc. vs.