This urgency is tacitly acknowledged by CRC Rule 3.1175 et seq, where the only reference to a noticed motion is in Rule 3.1184, dealing with the Receiver’s Final Account and Report. Even in that Rule, a stipulation of all parties is offered as an alternative to a noticed motion. On January 1, 2007, Article 4 was adopted as part of the reorganization of the California Rules of Court. That reorganization, as it pertained to receiverships, was based in large part on the Los Angeles Local Rules, which had been developed with the assistance of several of the California Receivers Forum members working with Judge Robert O’Brien and later, in 2006, with the Judicial Council of California. The Los Angeles Local Rules were selected as a model, due to the Los Angeles courts’ Writs and Receivers department, unique in the State.

There can be no doubt that the need for expediency in receivership matters often arises. It is also true that ex parte applications were, in the past, sometimes filed when a true emergency did not exist.

For many years, during the tenure of Judges O’Brien and Diane Wayne, as well as Commissioners Arnold Levin and Bruce Mitchell, the Los Angeles receivership courts acknowledged the need for expediency in their receivership cases. These needs arose under many disparate circumstances: e.g., confirmation of sales of assets of the receivership estates; interference with the administration of those estates; interference by creditors; improper bankruptcy filings, etc.

With the retirement of Judges O’Brien and Wayne plus Commissioners Levin and Mitchell from the Los Angeles Superior Court, attitudes abruptly changed and the receivership courts clearly communicated to receivers and their counsel that ex parte hearings were unnecessary and would rarely, if ever, be granted. In many cases, judicial officers failed to recognize and acknowledge that receivers are officers of the court and that estate assets are held by the receivers in custodia legis for the appointing court.

This was a sea change and the almost immediate result was twofold: (1) costs to the estates multiplied, as choices were made to file an ex parte application knowing that it would almost certainly be denied, with a requested alternative remedy being a hearing set on shortened notice; and (2) seasoned receivers and counsel routinely advised potential movants to file their complaints in branch courts whenever possible. The first alternative greatly increased the cost of a receivership; the second undermined the courts’ efforts to streamline processes, reduce congestion and, most importantly, to operate within the new, stringent budget allotted to the court system.

The genesis of the California Receivers Forum was a meeting between Los Angeles and Orange County Receivers in the early 1990’s, arising because there was a recognizable need to share information and raise issues of importance to the bench, the bar and non-attorney receivers. Almost simultaneously, Judge O’Brien had reached out to the Los Angeles receivership community, forming an ad hoc committee on receiverships which assisted in formulating the aforesaid new (Los Angeles County) local rules, implemented in early 1994. The line of communication opened between the courts, the Ad Hoc Receivership Committee and the Los Angeles and Orange County Receivers quickly proved itself to be invaluable in many ways. The community of receivers was made privy to problems seen by the bench and corrections were made; conversely, the courts were made aware of real time problems and generally reacted positively. In this era of openness, trust between the bench, bar and non-attorney practitioners bloomed and receiverships operated efficiently and cost-effectively.

While the Receivership News, under the able direction first of Peter Davidson, then Robert Mosier and Kathy Phelps, has made giant strides in raising the level of competency in the receivership world, it is unfortunate that communication between the bench, bar and non-attorney receivers has lagged behind. Suggestions from all sides are greatly appreciated.

This writer invites comments as to personal experiences with ex parte applications, both approved and rejected.

*Edythe Bronston is a founding director and past President of both the Los Angeles/Orange County Receivers Forum and the California Receivers Forum.
She is an attorney practicing in the area of receiverships and provisional directorships.