Order to Approve Receiver's April 2026 Report and Payment of Receiver's Fees and Expenses
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 16 Honorable William J. Monahan, Presiding (covering this calendar for Judge Parrett) Courtroom Clerk, 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2270
DATE: 7/22/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE 10 26CV484023 City of San Jose et al vs Motion: Order Cheryl Lam et al to Approve Receiver's April 2026 Report and Payment of Receiver's Fees and Expenses by Receiver Gerard Keena
Ctrl Click on Line 10 for ruling. The moving party shall prepare the order for signature by the court. 9:01 AM 23CV416289 A & S Enterprises, LLC et Motion: Withdraw as attorney Line 1 al vs MELISSA KOZAR et al By BROWN GEE & WENGER, LLP as counsel for Plaintiff A & S Enterprises, LLC
UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.
The court will sign the proposed order submitted on 6/29/2026 at 11:45pm. (Note: It will add a comma and LLP to the name of firm in No. 1.) 9:01 AM A & S Enterprises, LLC et Motion: Withdraw as attorney Line 2 23CV416289 al vs MELISSA KOZAR et al By BROWN GEE & WENGER, LLP as counsel for Plaintiff/Cross Defendant Alan Hammond, individually and as trustee
UNOPPOSED and GRANTED. The court will sign the proposed order submitted on 6/29/2026 at 11:45pm.
- oo0oo -
Calendar line 10 Case Name: City of San Jose et al vs Cheryl Lam et al Case No.: 26CV484023
Court-appointed Receiver Gerard F. Keena II (the “Receiver”) moves for approval of the Receiver’s April 2026 Monthly Report and Accounting and payment of the Receiver’s fees and expenses (the “Motion”). The Receiver also requests that the Court overrule the Defendants’ objections to the April Monthly Report and Accounting on the grounds that Defendants’ objections fail to identify any unreasonable or improper fees or expenses and instead constitute an improper collateral attack on the Court’s appointment of the Receiver.
Plaintiffs the People of the State of California and the City of San Jose (Plaintiffs) filed the Complaint on January 8, 2026, alleging defendants Cheryl Lam and Nicholas Keith Christian (Defendants) violated the Narcotics Abatement Law (Health and Safety Code § 11570, et seq.), public nuisance (Civil Code § 3479
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On January 13, 2026, the Court appointed Gerard F. Keena II as Receiver over the Property pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c), Health and Safety Code Section 11570, Code of Civil Procedure section 564 et seq., and the Court’s equitable powers. The appointment order authorized the Receiver to administer the Property, prepare periodic reports and accountancy, and receive compensation for services rendered. The appointment also provides that the Defendants may challenge the Receiver’s administration by filing objections to the Receiver’s reports pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1183. The Receiver served the April 2026 Monthly Report and Accounting, the Defendants filed objections, and the Receiver then filed the Motion seeking approval of the report and payment of the requested fees and expenses.
On June 17, 2026 the Court signed an order advancing the hearing on this motion from March 3, 2027 to July22, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 16 and that any opposition or reply briefing shall be filed and served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. The Receiver filed Notice of Advanced Hearing Date Re: Receiver’s Motion for Approval of April 2026 Monthly Report and Payment of Receiver’s Fees and Expenses and Proof of Service was electronically filed on June 23, 2026.
California Rule of Court 3.1183 states: (a) Interim fees are subject to final review and approval by the court. The court retains jurisdiction to award a greater or lesser amount as the full, fair, and final value of the services received. (b) Unless good cause is shown, objections to a receiver’s interim report and accounting must be made within 10 days of notice of the report and accounting, must be specific, and must be delivered to the receiver and all parties entitled to service of the interim report and accounting.
Defendants filed objections to the Receiver’s April 2026 Monthly Report and Accounting. The Receiver contends that Defendants’ objections do not identify any
unnecessary or improper fees or expenses, but instead seek to re-litigate the Court’s appointment of the Receiver. The Court’s appointment order remains valid, and Cheryl Lam’s appeal from that order has been dismissed, with the partial remittitur having been issued.
The receiver’s expenses are reviewed in equity, and absent the evidence of fraud, unfairness, or misconduct, they should be approved. People v. Riverside Univ., 35 Cal. App. 3d 572, 586 (1973). Furthermore, unsubstantiated objections do not provide a basis for refusing to approve a receiver’s account. Cnty. of Sacramento v. Rawat, 65 Cal. App. 5th 858, 865 (2021).
Simply put, the Receiver’s “challenged” activities during the April 2026 concern administration of the receivership estate, coordination of remedial efforts, communicating with stakeholders, addressing lender issues, responding to Defendants’ litigation activity and complying with Court obligations in the Appointing order, and the specific entries challenged by Defendants are proper receivership fees/costs.
Accordingly, the Court finds the Receiver’s April 2026 Monthly Report and Accounting and the requested fees and expenses are reasonable.
Therefore, regarding the Receiver’s Motion for Approval of the April 2026 Monthly Report and Accounting and Payment of Receiver’s Fees and Expenses, Defendants’ objections are OVERRULED, and the Motion is GRANTED.
The Receiver shall prepare an order for signature by the court including the specific amounts requested for approval in the Receiver’s April 2026 Monthly Report (See page 29 of 62 to the Declaration in Support of Brandon M. Carr filed 6/15/2026.
- oo0oo -