Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUSSEL ELLIOTT, et al., Case No.: 24-cv-00447-BAS-JLB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ 13 v. CONSOLIDATED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR: (1) ORDER 14 SPE TERRA NOVA APARTMENT COMPELLING DISCOVERY (FRCP OWNERS LLC, et al., 15 37); APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL Defendants. MASTER (FRCP 53); AND 16 APPOINTMENT OF MASTER 17 RECEIVER (FRCP 66)

18 [ECF No. 94] 19 20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Russel Elliott’s and Plaintiff Nelly Elliott’s 21 (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Consolidated Emergency Ex Parte Application for: (1) Order 22 Compelling Discovery (FRCP 38); (2) Appointment of Special Master (FRCP 53); and 23 (3) Appointment of Master Receiver (FRCP 66). (ECF No. 94.) For the reasons set forth 24 below, the Court DENIES all of Plaintiffs’ requests. 25 I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 26 On March 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging housing discrimination 27 based on familial status, sex, disability, and national origin and intimidation, (ECF No. 1.) 28 SPE filed its Answer on February 21, 2025. (ECF No. 17.) Thereafter, a Case Management 1 Conference was held and a Scheduling Orders issued. (ECF Nos. 28, 29.) The Scheduling 2 Order required all interrogatories, requests for admission, and document requests be served 3 by September 5, 2025. (ECF No. 29 ¶ 6.) Fact discovery closed on October 31, 2025. 4 (Id.) 5 Several entries have been filed on the docket regarding discovery obligations. (See 6 ECF No. 55, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 88, 89, 91.) 7 On March 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Emergency Ex Parte 8 Application for: (1) Order Compelling Discovery (FRCP 38); (2) Appointment of Special 9 Master (FRCP 53); and (3) Appointment of Master Receiver (FRCP 66) and accompanying 10 exhibits. (ECF No. 94, 94-1.) Defendants duly filed their Response in Opposition. (ECF 11 No. 95.) 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD 13 Generally, Federal Rule of 37(a) provides that a party may move for an order 14 compelling disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). And the Rule also prescribes 15 that, when a motion to compel is granted, the Court must “after giving an opportunity to 16 be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party 17 or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred 18 in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). 19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, a court may appoint a master only to: 20 (A) perform duties consented to by the parties; 21 (B) hold trial proceedings and make or recommend findings of fact on issues to be 22 decided without a jury if appointment is warranted by: (i) some exceptional condition; or 23 (ii) the need to perform an accounting or resolve a difficult computation of 24 damages; or 25 (C) address pretrial and posttrial matters that cannot be effectively and timely 26 addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge of the district. 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1). 28 1 Rule 66 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs an action in which the 2 appointment of a federal receiver is sought, or a receiver sues or is sued. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 66. Appointment of a receiver is a measure utilized by district courts as an extraordinary 4 equitable remedy which is applied with caution. See Can. Life Assurance Co. v. LaPeter, 5 563 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2009). 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 The Court will address each of Plaintiffs’ motions in turn. 8 A: Motion to Compel Discovery 9 First, the Court will consider Plaintiffs’ request for an order to compel the immediate 10 production of documents and responses to discovery requests that they claim Defendants 11 have willfully withheld. (ECF No. 94 at 9-10.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have 12 refused to answer basic discovery regarding their “Ghost Broker” status and corporate 13 structure, claiming this purported failure “is a calculated strategy to prevent the[m] [] from 14 identifying the location of [] $82 million before the 2027 trial date.” Id. at 9. Specifically, 15 Plaintiffs maintain the Defendants have withheld: (1) records detailing the transfer of $82 16 million from SPE Terra Nova to CG Artisan I, LLC; (2) proof of broker licensure for 2022; 17 and (3) a full list of all fictious business names utilized by the “Single Integrated 18 Enterprise.” (Id. at 9-10.) 19 Rule 37(a)(1) dictates that Plaintiffs must include with their motion to compel a 20 certification that they have conferred or at least attempted to confer with defense counsel 21 regarding the discovery issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). However, there is no evidence 22 before the Court that Plaintiffs performed this required action. Indeed, Defendants 23 maintain that “Plaintiffs failed to comply with [this Court’s] Rules, which require in-person 24 or telephonic meet-and-confer efforts.” (ECF No. 95 at 3.) 25 More importantly, the Court cannot compel a party to produce discovery unless the 26 requesting party demonstrates that relevant, proportional discovery was requested in a 27 procedurally proper way, and the responding party wrongfully withheld the discovery 28 without raising proper objections. Plaintiffs have put no evidence before the Court that 1 they issued relevant, proportional discovery during the discovery period seeking the 2 information they now seek to compel. Therefore, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s motion 3 to compel. Furthermore, discovery is now closed. Plaintiffs have failed to make an 4 adequate showing that ex parte relief is warranted. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 5 Plaintiffs request for an order compelling disclosure. 6 Relatedly, Plaintiffs ask the Court to impose monetary sanctions against Defendants 7 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) for failure to disclose a case brought against 8 them in the Northern District of California, Texas Insurance Co. v. JSP, et al., Case No. 9 25-cv-10807-WHO, and failure to disclose their unlicensed status. (ECF No. 94 at 10.) 10 Again, there is no evidence before the court that Plaintiffs sought this information in 11 discovery, much less that it was wrongfully withheld. Under these circumstances, the 12 Court cannot grant a motion to compel or impose sanctions. 13 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for monetary sanctions. See Fed. 14 R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). 15 B: Motion to Appoint Special Master 16 Next, the Court addresses Plaintiffs’ request for the Court to appoint a special master 17 to issue rulings regarding “alias identity disclosure.” (See generally ECF No. 94 at 6-9.) 18 Plaintiffs argue that appointment of a special master is warranted as “Defendants have 19 constructed a corporate labyrinth designed specifically to evade regulatory oversight and 20 legal accountability…[which] requires a specialized ‘watchdog’ with the authority to 21 perform a comprehensive audit of [] Defendants.” ECF No. 94 at 6-7. In essence, Plaintiffs 22 are asking this Court to appoint a financial expert to investigate the financial dealings of 23 named Defendants and other entities not parties to this lawsuit. Appointment of a special 24 master can be appropriate when needed “to address pretrial and posttrial matters that cannot 25 be effectively and timely addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge of the 26 district.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1)(C). However, Plaintiffs have not identified any pretrial 27 matter that is within the scope of this litigation that the Court cannot effectively and timely 28 address. Other than citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, which does not apply in this 1 circumstance, Plaintiffs cite no binding or persuasive legal authority to support their 2 request for this Court to make such an appointment. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to 3 appoint a special master is DENIED. 4 C. Motion to Appoint Master Receiver 5 Finally, the Court addresses Plaintiffs’ request for the Court to appoint a master 6 receiver to take control of a non-party, CG Artisan I, LLC’s, assets. Plaintiffs contend 7 Defendants’ “current actions liquidating the $82,000,000.00 Terra Nova Villas asset 8 exactly 48 hours after service and diverting those proceeds to a Delaware “shell” (CG 9 Artisan I, LLC) constitute a textbook case of Fraudulent Conveyance intended to frustrate 10 the ultimate judgment of this Court.” ECF No. 94 at 4. Plaintiffs urge the court to take 11 control of the CG Artison I, LLC accounts to ensure the status quo is maintained. However, 12 Plaintiffs again fail to cite any binding or persuasive authority to support their request for 13 this Court to appoint a receiver over a party not subject to this suit. 14 As noted above, appointment of a receiver is a measure utilized by district courts as 15 an extraordinary equitable remedy which is applied with caution. Here, Plaintiffs have 16 expressed concern about Defendant’s alleged transfer of assets but have not presented the 17 requisite evidence that application of this extraordinary remedy is necessary. See Can. Life 18 Assurance Co., 563 F.3d at 844 (setting forth seven factors for the court to consider when 19 determining when a receiver may be appointed). The compensatory and equitable relief 20 Plaintiffs seek in this case weigh against a finding that the legal remedies sought are 21 inadequate. Plaintiffs have not illustrated to the Court that they have some legally 22 recognizable right in the property that amounts to more than a mere claim against their 23 opponents. Of note here, and a consideration to which the Court gives considerable weight, 24 Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they have a likelihood of being awarded a sum that 25 would exceed Defendants ability to pay, even if, as alleged by Plaintiffs, Defendants are in 26 the process of selling their most significant asset. Thus, Plaintiffs have not established 27 irreparable injury to their interest such that this extraordinary remedy is warranted. In sum, 28 the appointment of a receiver is not supported and there is no “clear necessity to protect 1 Plaintiffs’ [purported] interests in the property.” Solis v. Matheson, 563 F.3d 425, 437 (9th 2 Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint a receiver is DENIED. 3 D. Caution about Filing Future Ex Parte Applications 4 As accurately noted by Defendants, ex parte relief is reserved for truly exigent 5 circumstances. Courts generally require applicants to demonstrate: (1) immediate and 6 irreparable injury before the adverse party can be heard; (2) a risk that notice would result 7 in destruction of evidence or flight; or (3) the need for a routine procedural order 8 unavailable through regular motion practice. Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. 9 Supp. 2d 1203, 1211 (C.D. Cal. 2013). This is, in part, because: 10 . . . [E]x parte applications contravene the structure and spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this court. Both contemplate 11 that noticed motions should be the rule and not the exception. Timetables for 12 the submission of responding papers and for the setting of hearings are intended to provide a framework for the fair, orderly, and efficient resolution 13 of disputes. Ex parte applications throw the system out of whack. They impose 14 an unnecessary administrative burden on the court and an unnecessary adversarial burden on opposing counsel who are required to make a hurried 15 response under pressure, usually for no good reason. They demand priority 16 consideration, where such consideration is seldom deserved. In effect, they put the applicant “ahead of the pack,” without cause or justification. 17 18 Id. at 1205 (quoting In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191 (C.D. Cal. 1989) 19 (footnote omitted)). 20 This Court’s chamber’s rules set forth the proper procedure for filing noticed 21 motions. Future filings of ex parte applications that do not qualify for ex parte treatment 22 will be stricken from the docket and not addressed on the merits. As to any future ex parte 23 applications filed by Plaintiff, Defendants are excused from filing a response within 24 24 hours as ordinarily required by the Court’s chambers rules. Instead, the Court will issue a 25 briefing schedule for any ex parte applications not stricken from the docket. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// I IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court: 3 1. DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery; 4 2. DENIES Plaintiffs’ Request for Monetary Sanctions; 5 3. DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Special Master; and 6 4. DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Master Receiver. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: May 11, 2026 - n. Jill L. Burkhardt 10 ited States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28