United States of America v. The Real Property Known as The Viceroy LErmitage Beverly Hills, No. 2:2016cv05368 - Document 175 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. SEE FINAL JUDGMENT FOR SPECIFICS. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States of America v. The Real Property Known as The Viceroy LErmitage Beverly Hills Doc. 175 JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 Case No. 16-05368-DSF (PLAx) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE VICEROY L’ERMITAGE BEVERLY HILLS, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Upon consideration of the Unopposed Application for Entry of 17 Final Judgment of Forfeiture (the “Application”) filed by Plaintiff 18 United 19 Eidelman, not individually, but in his capacity as court-appointed 20 Special 21 Government, the “Movants”), seeking entry of a Final Judgment of 22 Forfeiture, for good cause the Court hereby finds and orders as 23 follows: States Master of America (the “Special “Government”) Master” and, and Michael collectively M. with FINDINGS 24 25 (the A. On July 20, action 2016, Government “L’Ermitage initiated 27 alleging that all assets relating to the business operated as the 28 Viceroy Hills (the Assets civil forfeiture Beverly Business a 26 L’Ermitage (the the “Business Action”) Assets”), as Dockets.Justia.com 1 described in Attachment A to the Government’s Verified Complaint 2 for 3 subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and (C). 4 Forfeiture B. In Rem [Case No. 16-05369, Dkt. No. 1-1], are On July 20, 2016, the Government initiated a separate 5 civil forfeiture action (together with the L’Ermitage Business 6 Assets Action, the “L’Ermitage Actions”) alleging that the real 7 property 8 “Property”, and together with the Business Assets, the “Defendant 9 Assets”), as described in Attachment A to the Government’s Verified 10 Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem [Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. No. 1- 11 1], is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) 12 and (C). 13 C. known The as The Government Viceroy gave L’Ermitage and Beverly published Hills notice of (the the 14 L’Ermitage Actions as required by law, including Supplemental 15 Rule G 16 Actions, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules 17 of this Court. 18 D. for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture On November 7, 2016 and October 11, 2017, VHG Beverly 19 Hills LLC ("VHG") filed claims to the Defendant Assets. [Case 20 No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. Nos. 35 and 130; Case No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt. 21 Nos. 37 and 131]. 22 E. On March 24, 2017 and October 11, 2017, LBH Real Estate 23 (Beverly Hills) LLC (“LBH Real Estate”), JW Hospitality Ltd. (“VHG 24 INTL”), and JW Hospitality LLC (collectively and together with VHG, 25 “Claimants”) filed claims to the Business Assets. [Case No. 16-cv- 26 05369, Dkt. Nos. 102 and 130]. On those same dates, LBH Real Estate 27 also filed claims to the Property. [Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. 28 Nos. 101 and 129]. -2- F. 1 On November 8, 2019, the Court entered a Consent Judgment 2 of Forfeiture in each of the L’Ermitage Actions as to all Claimants 3 other than VHG (Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. No. 152; Case No. 16- 4 cv-05369, Dkt. No. 153) (collectively, the “Consent Judgments”), 5 pursuant to which all Claimants other than VHG renounced any claims 6 to the Defendant Assets and any substitute res, and allowed any 7 interests they held therein to be forfeited to the Government. G. 8 9 On April 30, 2020, the Government and VHG, as the only remaining parties in the L'Ermitage Actions, filed a Joint 10 Stipulation and Request for Order Authorizing Interlocutory Sale 11 of 12 (collectively, the “Interlocutory Sale Stipulations”). (Case No. 13 16-cv-05368, Dkt. No. 156; Case No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt. No. 157). 14 the H. Defendant Assets in each of the L’Ermitage Actions On May 1, 2020, the Court entered orders in each of the 15 L’Ermitage Actions: (i) finding that the Defendant Assets should 16 be sold via an interlocutory sale, with the proceeds of such sale 17 substituted as the defendant res in each action; and (ii) finding 18 that the procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2002, which 19 statutes govern interlocutory sales of property pending forfeiture, 20 were not reasonable, appropriate or likely to yield the highest 21 price for the Defendant Assets. (Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. No. 22 157; Case No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt. No. 158). 23 I. On May 5, 2020, claimant VHG withdrew all of its claims 24 to the Defendant Assets. 25 No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt. No. 159). 26 J. (Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. No. 158; Case On May 5, 2020, the Court entered orders in each of the 27 L’Ermitage Actions appointing the Special Master to market and sell 28 the Defendant Assets, and approving proposed bidding and sale -3- 1 procedures for the Special Master to sell the Defendant Assets 2 (collectively, the “Sale Procedures”).(Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. 3 No. 160; Case No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt. No. 161). K. 4 On August 31, 2020, the Court entered orders in each of 5 the L’Ermitage Actions (collectively, the “Final Interlocutory Sale 6 Orders”): (i) approving the Sale of the Defendant Assets to LBVH 7 Hotel LLC (the “Purchaser”) pursuant to the terms of set forth in 8 that certain Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Hotel and Joint 9 Escrow Instructions (the “Stalking Horse PSA”) for a purchase price 10 of $100,000,000.00, plus or minus prorations and adjustments as 11 set forth in the Stalking Horse PSA (the “Substitute Res”);(ii) 12 approving the Sale of the Defendant Assets free and clear of all 13 liens, 14 limitation and at the option of the Stalking Horse Bidder, the 15 Management Agreement (as that term is defined in the Stalking Horse 16 PSA); (iii) authorizing the Government to consummate the Sale of 17 the Defendant Assets and transactions contemplated by the Stalking 18 Horse 19 accordance with the Sale Procedures. (Case No. 16-cv-05368, Dkt. 20 No. 166; Case No. 16-cv-05369, Dkt. No. 165). 21 claims, PSA; L. and encumbrances (iv) finding and interests, that the Sale including, was without conducted in Based upon the Final Interlocutory Sale Orders, the 22 Government is currently holding the Substitute Res less any Sale- 23 related 24 Interlocutory Sale Orders (the “Remaining Substitute Res”) in the 25 United States Marshal Service’s Seized Asset Deposit Fund (the 26 “SADF”) pending the conclusion of the L’Ermitage Actions. 27 28 M. costs paid pursuant to paragraphs 7-8 of the Final Since the closing of the Sale, the Movants and the Purchaser have worked together to pay or otherwise satisfy all -4- 1 valid claims against the Remaining Substitute Res not filed in this 2 action or otherwise payable by the Purchaser in accordance with 3 the procedures approved by the Court. 4 N. No other claims to the Defendant Assets or Substitute 5 Res were filed and the time for filing claims has expired. 6 of the Claimants’ claims have been fully resolved. 7 O. No party has objected to the Application, Each the 8 disbursement of the Remaining Substitute Res, or the closure and 9 conclusion of the L’Ermitage Actions. 10 P. The Court finds, based upon the Application and the 11 record of these proceedings, the Movants have demonstrated good 12 cause to grant the Application and approve the relief sought 13 therein. 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 15 1. The Application is granted. 16 2. All rights, titles, and interests of Claimants and all 17 other potential claimants in and/or to the Substitute Res and 18 Remaining Substitute Res are hereby forfeited to the Government 19 pursuant 20 Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset 21 Forfeiture 22 Procedure, and the applicable Local Rules of this Court. 23 3. to 18 U.S.C. Actions, § 981(a)(1)(A) the applicable and (C), Federal the applicable Rules of Civil The United States Marshals Service shall dispose of the 24 Remaining Substitute Res in accordance with applicable law, less 25 any fees and costs unpaid related to the Sale. 26 4. If any or all of the provisions of this Final Judgment 27 of Forfeiture are hereafter reversed, modified or vacated by a 28 subsequent order and/or judgment of this Court or any other court, -5-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
