William J. Hoffman v. Marvin Tarnol et al
Plaintiff: William J Hoffman
Defendant: LMKT Corporation, Laurie Tarnol and Marvin Tarnol
Case Number: 2:2015cv05755
Filed: July 29, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Frederick F. Mumm
Presiding Judge: S. James Otero
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
October 18, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 115 ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge S. James Otero: The Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. An order regarding the real property located at 5014 Gloria Avenue, Encino, California (APN: 2261-013-018) shall be entered in accordance with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge: IT IS SO ORDERED. (jm)
September 26, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 70 FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RECEIVER WILLIAM J. HOFFMAN ON HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 68 by Judge S. James Otero: The Court, having considered the Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") filed on August 15, 2016, by Plaintiff W illiam J. Hoffman ("Receiver"), Court appointed receiver for Nationwide Automated Systems, Inc., Oasis Studio Rentals, LLC, Oasis Studio Rentals #2, LLC, Oasis Studio Rentals #3, LLC, and their subsidiaries and affiliates, all papers in support of and in opposition thereto, and good cause appearing therefor as explained in the reasons set forth in the Order Granting Receiver's Motion for Summary Judgment entered on September 21, 2016(Dkt. No. 68), hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AN D DECREES as follows:1. The Receiver's Motion is granted in its entirety; 2. Final Judgment is entered in favor of the Receiver and against: (a) Marvin Tarnol, individually and as Trustee of the Marvin Tarnol and Laurie Tarnol Second Amende d Intervivos Trust Agreement Dated November 4, 1997, and (b) Laurie Tarnol, individually and as Trustee of the Marvin Tarnol and Laurie Tarnol Second Amended Intervivos Trust Agreement Dated November 4, 1997, jointly andseverally, in the amount of $1,456,716; and 3. Interest to accrue on judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (vv)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: William J. Hoffman v. Marvin Tarnol et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: William J Hoffman
Represented By: Edward G Fates
Represented By: Tim C Hsu
Represented By: David R Zaro
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: LMKT Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Laurie Tarnol
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Marvin Tarnol
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?