DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CU23-02729·solano·Civil·Receivership
Hearing todayTHE PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR

BFSP LLC vs. 8077 HYDE ROAD AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS, LLC; ET AL.

Motion by Receiver for Approval of Final Accounting, Ratification and Discharge of Receiver, Exoneration of Receiver’s Bond and Related Relief

Hearing date
Aug 28, 2026
Department
Seven
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBFSP LLC
Defendant8077 HYDE ROAD AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS, LLC

Ruling

Case No. CU23-02729

Motion by Receiver for Approval of Final Accounting, Ratification and Discharge of Receiver, Exoneration of Receiver’s Bond and Related Relief

CRC 3.1184(a) directs a receiver to move for approval of a final account, discharge, and exoneration of bond.

CRC 3.1184(c) requires service of such a motion on the parties and any known creditors.

Notice of the motion or of the stipulation must be given to every person or entity known to the receiver to have a substantial, unsatisfied claim that will be affected by the order or stipulation, whether or not the person or entity is a party to the action or has appeared in it.

The proof of service filed for the motion papers and final accounting signed under penalty of perjury included an 8-page attachment, but no clear evidence is provided to confirm that this is a current and complete list.

Receiver and Receiver’s counsel are therefore to appear, and provide explanation and confirmation under penalty of perjury that the 8-page list is a current and accurate list of all known creditors served with the final accounting motion and notice of advanced hearing.

VIDA LARA; ET AL. vs. WINNRESIDENTIAL CALIFORNIA, LP.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share