|
|
|
Judicial Profile: LA County Superior court Judge Dzintra Janvas Discusses Receivership Law & Issues By Rense, Kirk*
Judge Janavs’ remarkable record on the bench is matched by an equally remarkable background of achievement. Many of the attorneys who appear in her always buzzing Department 85—frequently at the epicenter of major issues swirling in Los Angeles—know of Judge Janavs’ distinguished educational, legal and judicial background, to wit:
But it isn’t so widely known that Judge Janavs migrated to the United States with her parents in 1950 after spending some years in a displaced persons camp in Southern Germany rather than return to their native country of Latvia (then under Soviet rule) following World War II. Her father—formerly a court clerk and law student—became a gardener, and her mother—a lawyer in her native country – became a housekeeper upon immigrating. Both proudly attended their daughter’s enrobement in 1986. Judge Janavs’ accomplishments are not limited to the bench. She served as an adjunct professor for trial advocacy at Loyola law School, has served on dozens of bar association, CEB and state panels and committees on legal topics (as panelist, lecturer and instructor), has lectured extensively on such diverse topics as trial advocacy, environmental law (she is one of only a handful of Los Angeles County Superior Court judges designated to hear CEQA suits), and is a recognized expert on receiverships and civil proceedings before trial.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Assistant Presiding Judge Stephen Czuleger has described Judge Janavs as an “unparalleled resource” for her work in the Writs and Receivers Department, saying:
The RN was fortunate to have an opportunity to interview Judge Janavs on several issues central to receivership practice. That interview is presented in a question and answer format. RN: What are the most important lessons you have learned about the use of receivers during your tenure in the Writs and Receivers Department? JUDGE JANAVS: In this department you learn a huge amount every single day. In terms of receiverships, what most judges don’t realize is the tremendous number of different types of receivers that exist and can exist. When I was with the U.S. Attorney’s office I had limited exposure to receivers. Since becoming a judge I’ve learned about the variety of receiverships that are available—and the specific problems that receivers may encounter in these different types of cases. I had no appreciation of this before coming to this department. As you know, the appointment of a receiver is a drastic remedy for a number of reasons. If there is an ongoing business, the appointment of a receiver over the business takes it away from the owners or persons who have been running it. Also, a receivership is a very expensive remedy. Generally speaking, there are three different types of receiverships I see in my court the most. There are receivers sought in actions by financial institutions against their debtors / borrowers usually on a promissory note backed by a security agreement covering a broad range of tangible and intangible personal property, and often where the company is about to go out of business. There is usually a legal remedy available in these situations, but if the company is secreting and liquidating the lender’s collateral, there may be justification to appoint a receiver to preserve the property. These generally are fairly straightforward, fairly routine receiverships and relatively easy compared to some others. Some applicants are seeking the appointment of a receiver to collect a judgment, a post-judgment receivership. These are also relatively straightforward. Then there are actions brought by private individuals or entities such as corporations, partnerships, LLC’s against other individuals or entities for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, or for dissolution. These are the receiverships that give rise to the most difficulties (for the receiver and sometimes for the court), because often the parties are antagonistic, contentious and aggressive. The receiver has to deal with conflicting views, demands and expectations. Anything the receiver does may be viewed by one party as favoring the other. In these circumstances it can be difficult for the receiver to maintain his or her impartiality and the appearance of impartiality. Often the most bitter disputes involve family members. All kinds of issues come up. I sometimes have had hearings in this type case several times a month. I prefer that receivers deal with these issues on their own as often as possible, but a receiver should never hesitate to seek instructions when in doubt. It is also important for receivers to seek input from both sides in these disputes, in an effort to minimize or resolve the problems that arise. RN: What are the most common errors you see receivers make in their administration? JUDGE JANAVS: I can’t think of anything I’d call an “error.” The receivers I see are quite experienced and know what they are doing. I find that the quality of the pleadings presented is generally excellent. The attorneys who appear before me are very experienced and often specialists in the handling of the kinds of problems receivers face. When receivers are having difficulties I think they should seek instructions from the court and most do just that. A receiver should not risk going beyond the scope of the appointing order.
The receiver must always act with consideration for all parties. One question the receiver must always ask – “Is this [potential action] truly for the benefit of all parties?” Secondly — “If I were a party in the underlying case, how would I feel about what I am preparing to do?” If receivers always asked these questions before they acted, many of the matters coming up before me could be avoided. RN: What about regulatory receiverships? Do you want your receiver to automatically shut down the operation or the company the regulatory agency has alleged is acting outside the law? JUDGE JANAVS: In these types of cases the goal of the regulatory agency generally is to shut down the operation. Basically you have a situation which usually ends in a shutdown of the entity. As a general rule receivers should do what they are appointed to do as efficiently and as smoothly as possible. Regulatory receivers’ overall duties and responsibilities are no different than those of other receivers. They must maintain neutrality, just as the judge does. RN: What is exciting about sitting in this department? JUDGE JANAVS: The most exciting thing is the opportunity and ability to participate in resolution of some especially challenging, interesting and important problems and issues that may affect many people. Many cases in Writs and Receivers have novel issues with little or no precedent for guidance. There is a vast change in receiverships since the late 1980’s when I first sat in this department. We did rents and profits receiverships then, but not anymore. Just like in other cases, the problems that come up in receivership cases have become much more complex in recent years. Extremely complex business arrangements have become much more common. LLC’s didn’t even exist back then. Also, in mandamus cases we now see bias and conflict issues being raised with great frequency, and there is a body of case law that has developed construing these issues. We may see such issues raised more in receiverships as well. RN: Do you see a benefit in having all receivership matters assigned to one department like your court, rather than all judges doing their own appointments, as is the case in most outlying courts? JUDGE JANAVS: Well, this district is unlike most others. As regards civil litigation, there are many cases we see that are unique – we continually see matters that are more diversified and complex then those routinely faced by outlying courts or some other jurisdictions. Having a centralized Writs and Receivers Department helps. It avoids some 50 other very busy judges having to become familiar with a very specialized area of the law and being involved in the frequently very time consuming task of supervising receiverships. But I also do not see any problem with judges doing their own appointments. As judges, we constantly face new issues, new areas of law, so handling a receivership for the first time is no different. The fact that receivers and the attorneys representing them are generally specialists in their fields helps. RN: Do litigants have common misconceptions about receivers and receiverships? JUDGE JANAVS: There are occasions where someone, as a tactical matter, comes in and says I want a receiver. I always ask “Have you considered whether there is anything else that could solve the problem short of appointing a receiver? What about a TRO or preliminary injunction? Why not a management company to collect the rent?” Some people think a receiver is going to do their own discovery for them and support their litigation effort. This is not a correct use of a receiver, who must remain neutral. RN: Do you allow your receivers to promote settlement? JUDGE JANAVS: This is a very hard question. It can be a dangerous thing. The receiver can’t risk his or her neutrality. When you begin analyzing positions you may slip (or be perceived to have slipped) into the appearance of non-neutrality, and can be accused of a lack of impartiality. The receiver’s actions are absolutely bound by the scope of the appointing order. Anything beyond that should only be undertaken with the approval of the appointing court.
RN: What about ex parte appointments? Do you ever grant such applications? JUDGE JANAVS: Ex parte receiver appointments are extremely rare, in my experience, and are appropriate only in extreme emergencies. A TRO or appointment of a receiver without notice of any sort is even more rare. If you must seek such an appointment, it is better to come to my court on an even numbered day when I do not have a 9:30 calendar. That gives me more time to spend on the matter without impacting other cases and attorneys. RN: Has the manner in which you use receivers changed since your initial appointment? JUDGE JANAVS: I don’t think so. It was a drastic remedy 20 years ago and it is still a drastic remedy. There have been no fundamental changes to receivership law in recent years, and, perhaps, not for a very long time. RN: Do you think the California Receivers Forum is a worthwhile endeavor? Do you see it contributing to the quality of receivership practice? JUDGE JANAVS: I think the Receivership Forum is very valuable and worthwhile. I would assume that people who are less experienced are learning a lot from the experienced lecturers at the multi-day seminars held for receivers at Loyola Law School by the Receivership Forum. No doubt, even the experienced receivers learn from the experiences of others. RN: Thank you very much for your time Judge Janavs. |
The Honorable Dzintra Janavs, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge and
a mainstay of the Central District’s Writs and Receivers Department since
1999, is the subject of this issue’s Judicial Profile.