People v. Aguayo CA2/2

Filed 4/2/14 P. v. Aguayo CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, No. B246406

Plaintiff, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. VC048452) v.

JESUS AGUAYO et al.,

Defendants and Appellants;

DAVID J. PASTERNAK,

Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John Shepard Wiley, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

No appearance for Plaintiff.

Ronald E. Wiksell for Defendants and Appellants.

Pasternak & Pasternak and David J. Pasternak for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

Jesus Aguayo and Sofia Aguayo (appellants) appeal from an order of the trial court approving the first report for interim compensation of respondent, court-appointed receiver David J. Pasternak (receiver). Appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion in approving hourly compensation to the receiver in an amount greater than that previously approved by the court, and in permitting payments for the receiver’s employee of hourly rates that appellants argued were unreasonable. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm. BACKGROUND Appellants have been convicted of 31 felonies in furtherance of a plan to steal title to real property belonging to others. At the same time the People of the State of California (People) initiated criminal proceedings against appellants, the People filed this civil case to enjoin appellants’ conduct, obtain restitution for victims, and impose civil penalties. On October 19, 2006, the court in the criminal action appointed a receiver over the real property at issue and over some of appellants’ other assets. On April 2, 2007, the court in this matter entered a receivership on the same terms as the order in the criminal action. On July 19, 2007, an order was entered confirming the receiver’s appointment. Although the receiver originally took possession and control of 122 real properties, together with over $1 million on deposit at bank accounts, the number of receivership properties was eventually reduced to approximately 82. On April 10, 2012, the receiver filed his first report and account and notice of motion for issuance of an order approving his first report and approving interim compensation from the commencement of the case through February 29, 2012. On April 27, 2012, appellants filed an opposition to the receiver’s motion. Appellants argued that the receiver overcharged for the services he rendered; was negligent in paying property taxes; was negligent in renting the properties and maintaining the properties at reasonable cost; and overpaid for insurance.1