Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01628/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01628-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:0078m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

GINA CHAMPION-CAIN AND ANI 

DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

Defendants, and

AMERICAN NATIONAL 

INVESTMENTS, INC.,

Relief Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

ORDER REGARDING PENDING

PROPERTY SALE MOTIONS

[ECF Nos. 148, 150, 165, 169, 176]

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 1 of 23
2

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. BACKGROUND

The Court has recounted the procedural background of this case in several other 

orders and will not rehash it in its entirety herein. See ECF Nos. 54, 162, 163, 166. Relevant 

here, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brought this action against

Defendants Gina Champion-Cain and ANI Development, LLC, and Relief Defendant 

American National Investments, Inc., on August 28, 2019, alleging Defendants engaged in 

a liquor license escrow scheme that purportedly defrauded lenders and investors out of 

more than $120 million. Upon a stipulated joint motion by the parties, the Court established 

an equity receivership and appointed Krista Freitag as a permanent Receiver of Defendant 

ANI Development, LLC and Relief Defendant American National Investments, Inc. on 

September 3, 2019. ECF No. 6 (“the Appointment Order”). In the Appointment Order, the 

Court authorized the Receiver to take control over all funds and assets owned, managed, 

or in the possession or control of the receivership entities. See id. at 14-16. The receivership 

assets include all premises owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by the 

receivership entities. Id. at 14.

On December 11, 2019, Chief Judge Burns granted the parties’ Joint Motion (ECF 

No. 156) to give limited consent to the undersigned to hear and directly decide all motions 

filed in this action to approve sales of receivership assets. ECF No. 160. See also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c); CivLR 72.1(g). Pursuant to the grant of consent, the Court set a hearing on all 

then-pending property motions for January 24, 2020. ECF No. 164. Further, the Court set 

a briefing schedule dictating that any additional property sale motions related to 

receivership assets that the Receiver filed by December 27, 2019 would be addressed at the 

January 24th hearing. Id. The Court also set response and reply deadlines on any such 

motions for January 10 and January 17, 2020, respectively. Id. Finally, the Court ordered 

the Receiver to file proposed uniform sale procedures to govern all future property sale 

motions in this action, which the Receiver did by the deadline of January 3, 2020, and 

permitted objections to her proposal to be filed by January 10, 2020. Id.; ECF No. 195.

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 2 of 23
3

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Adopting in part the Receiver’s proposal, the Court issued an order establishing uniform 

sale procedures on January 22, 2020. ECF No. 219.

In addition to the two pending property sale motions the Receiver had already filed 

when the Court set its briefing schedule for the January 24, 2020 hearing, the Receiver 

filed three more property sale motions by the deadline of December 27, 2019. These 

motions include: 

(1) the Receiver’s Motion for (A) Approval of Sale of Real Property Located at 805 

Brighton Court; and (B) Authority to Pay Broker’s Commission (ECF No. 148) (“the 

Brighton Court Motion”); 

(2) the Receiver’s Motion for Authority to (A) Engage Licensed Auctioneer, (B) 

Utilize Liquor License Broker to Sell Liquor Licenses, and (C) Sell Personal Property 

(ECF No. 150) (“the Auctioneer Motion”); 

(3) the Receiver’s Motion for (A) Approval of Sale of Rancho Mirage Property; 

and (B) Authority to Pay Broker’s Commission (ECF No. 165) (“the Rancho Mirage 

Motion”);

(4) a Joint Motion for Approval of Sale of Personal Property and Liquor License 

Associated with the Restaurant Formerly Known as the Patio on 101 (ECF No. 169) (“the 

Patio on 101 Motion”), filed by the Receiver, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange 

Commission (“the SEC”), and Defendant Gina-Champion Cain; and 

(5) a Joint Motion for Approval of Sale of Personal Property and Liquor License 

Associated with the Patio on Goldfinch Restaurant (ECF No. 176) (“the Patio on Goldfinch 

Motion”), filed by the Receiver, the SEC, and Defendant Gina-Champion Cain. 

No express opposition was filed by any party or interested non-party by the deadline 

of January 10, 2020. However, interested non-party CalPrivate Bank filed responses to the 

Auctioneer Motion and the Rancho Mirage Motion on January 8 and January 9, 2020, 

respectively. ECF Nos. 198, 204. The Court will discuss CalPrivate Bank’s responses in 

more detail in its Discussion Section. 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 3 of 23
4

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court held a hearing on all five motions on January 24, 2020. ECF No. 225. 

Upon review of the relevant briefing and in consideration of the testimony at the hearing, 

the Court GRANTS all five motions, for the reasons explained more fully below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[I]t is a recognized principle of law that the district court has broad powers and

wide discretion to determine the appropriate relief in an equity receivership.” SEC v.

Lincoln Thrift Ass’n, 577 F.2d 600, 606 (9th Cir. 1978). See also SEC v. Hardy, 803 F.2d

1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[A] district court’s power to supervise an equity receivership

and to determine the appropriate action to be taken in the administration of the receivership

is extremely broad.”).

Where a district court sits in equity, “[u]nless a statute in so many words, or by a

necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court’s jurisdiction in equity, the full

scope of that jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied. ‘The great principles of equity,

securing complete justice, should not be yielded to light inferences, or doubtful

construction.’” Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946). The Court thus

has “inherent equitable authority to issue a variety of ‘ancillary relief’ measures in actions

brought by the SEC to enforce the federal securities laws.” SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363,

1369 (9th Cir. 1980). In recognition of such “inherent equitable authority” of federal

district courts, the Ninth Circuit “has repeatedly approved imposition of a receivership in

appropriate circumstances.” Id.

As part of its wide discretion to direct the appropriate relief in an equity receivership,

the district court sitting in equity and having custody and control of property “has power

to order a sale of the same in its discretion. The power of sale necessarily follows the power

to take control of and to preserve property[.]” SEC v. Am. Capital Investments, Inc., 98

F.3d 1133, 1144 (9th Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Steel Co. v. Citizens for a

Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998) (quoting 2 Ralph E. Clark, Treatise on Law &

Practice of Receivers § 482 (3d ed. 1992) (hereinafter “Clark on Receivers”).

Consequently, a federal equity receiver “can conduct a judicial sale of real property that is

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 4 of 23
5

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

property within their ‘possession and control’ and within the court’s territorial jurisdiction,

where all parties of interest have been brought before the court.” Am. Capital Investments,

Inc., 98 F.3d at 1145 n.17 (citation omitted). However, if the court approves the sale, such

approval does not purport to convey legal title to the buyer; rather, the sale conveys

“‘good,’ equitable title enforced by an injunction against suit.” Id. (citing Clark on

Receivers §§ 342, 344, 482(a), 487, 489, 491). In so doing, the court “protectsthe purchaser

against interference and assures him a quiet title and quiet enjoyment.” Id. (quoting Clark

on Receivers § 487).

“The power of a district court to impose a receivership or grant other forms of

ancillary relief does not in the first instance depend on a statutory grant of power from the

securities laws. Rather, the authority derives from the inherent power of a court of equity

to fashion effective relief.” Wencke, 622 F.2d at 1369. See also Am. Capital Investments,

Inc., 98 F.3d at 1145 (rejecting the assertion that “there is no federal common law of

receiverships” as “vastly overstated” because “the powers of sale of federal equity

receivers are well-established.”). Nonetheless, federal statutes do provide some authority

and guidance for courts overseeing equity receiverships. Pertinent here,

28 U.S.C. § 2001(a) provides for a public sale process of realty in the possession of an

appointed receiver “upon such terms and conditions as the court directs.” 28 U.S.C. § 2002

further requires that notice be published once a week for at least four weeks prior to the

sale in at least one newspaper regularly issued and of general circulation in the county,

state, or judicial district where the realty is located.1 These statutory safeguards of notice

and opportunity to submit overbids help to ensure that the sale is able to fetch the best price

possible, which is consistent with the principle that “a primary purpose of equity

receiverships is to promote orderly and efficient administration of the estate by the district

 

1 28 U.S.C. § 2001 also provides for a private sale process under subsection (b), but the 

requirements of that subsection are more stringent. The Receiver does not propose a private 

sale here.

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 5 of 23
6

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

court for the benefit of creditors.” Hardy, 803 F.2d at 1038. See also United States v.

Grable, 25 F.3d 298, 303 (6th Cir. 1994) (noting that “the intent of” the requirement in 28

U.S.C. § 2001 that property be sold in the county in which the land is situated is “to bring

a better price at the sale”); SEC v. Billion Coupons, Inc., No. CIV. 09-00068 JMSLEK,

2009 WL 2143531, at *3 (D. Haw. July 13, 2009), report and recommendation adopted,

No. CIV. 09-00068JMS-LEK, 2009 WL 2365696 (D. Haw. July 29, 2009) (approving a

receiver’s proposed alternative procedure for the sale of real property because the

alternative procedure “ha[d] sufficient safeguards in order to solicit the highest price that a

willing buyer in an arms-length negotiation will offer while conducting the sales in a timely

and cost-efficient manner that will maximize the net sales proceeds.”).

III. DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the Court turns to CalPrivate Bank’s responses to the 

Brighton Court Motion and the Auctioneer Motion. The Court will address both responses 

at the outset rather than repeating the same analysis in its separate discussions of those 

motions.

Both responses make clear that CalPrivate Bank “does not oppose” either motion 

“but wants to ensure that its claim of a first priority perfected security interest in the assets 

of Defendant ANI Development, LLC and of ANI License Fund, LLC, is preserved[.]” 

ECF No. 198 at 1; see also ECF No. 204 at 1-2. CalPrivate Bank’s claim of a priority 

security interest arises from a $5 million commercial loan it made to ANI License Fund, 

LLC in September 2015, which was later increased to $12.5 million. See ECF No. 31-1, 

Sowers Decl. According to CalPrivate Bank, the loan is secured by commercial security 

agreements between CalPrivate Bank and ANI License Fund, LLC and Defendant ANI 

Development LLC, which grant CalPrivate Bank a broad form security interest in all of the 

assets of these two entities. See id., Sowers Decl., Exs. C, D, E, & F. Additionally, 

CalPrivate Bank indicated in its Response to the Receiver’s Proposed Procedures 

Governing Future Property Sales Motions (ECF No. 205) that it would have filed similar 

responses to both the Patio on 101 Motion and the Patio on Goldfinch Motion (collectively, 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 6 of 23
7

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“the Joint Motions”) if not for its mistaken belief that no hearings had been set on those 

motions. See id. at 205 (“Both sales [proposed in the Joint Motions], if approved, 

apparently will generate significant net proceeds for the Receiver. Because no hearings 

have been set for the joint motions, [CalPrivate Bank] has not responded to them, but again 

asks that any approved Sales Procedures apply to such joint motions and include a 

provision reserving [CalPrivate Bank’s] claim of a priority perfected security interest.”).

The Court finds that CalPrivate Bank’s responses do not raise any live dispute, and 

thus warrant no action by the Court in this Order. In the response regarding the Brighton 

Court property, CalPrivate Bank states that “the source of funds used by ANI Inc., as a 

Receivership Entity, to purchase the property is not identified[,]” but “[t]he most likely 

source of some or all of the funds used to purchase the property is the massive fraud that 

the SEC alleges was perpetrated by Defendants . . . . Indeed, ANI Inc. is identified by the 

SEC as the ‘Relief Defendant.’” ECF No. 204 at 2. Similarly, the brief lodged in response 

to the Auctioneer Motion acknowledges that “[t]he source of funds used by Receivership 

Entities to acquire the liquor licenses and personal property [at issue in the motion] is not 

identified and does not appear to be known at this stage in the receivership. However, it 

should be expected, until established to the contrary, that some or all of the funds originated 

in the massive fraud that the SEC’s Complaint alleges was perpetrated by 

Defendants . . . .” ECF No. 198 at 2. Therefore, it is clear from the responses that CalPrivate 

Bank merely wants to preserve its claim to the assets of Defendant ANI Development, LLC 

and ANI License Fund, LLC described above, although it admits that it is not yet known 

whether the receivership assets at issue in the motion qualify as such. Therefore, the Court 

finds the responses do not raise any ripe controversy. Indeed, CalPrivate Bank confirmed 

during the hearing that it has no opposition to the proposed sales at issue, and merely wants

to ensure that its claim of a first-priority interest in the proceeds of the sales has been 

properly reserved. As is true of all interested non-parties who have appeared in this action, 

CalPrivate Bank’s claim of an interest is not waived by the Court’s approval of any sale of 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 7 of 23
8

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

receivership assets. The Court will thus treat as unopposed all property sale motions 

addressed in this Order.

A. Brighton Court Motion (ECF No. 148)

The Brighton Court Motion concerns a residential property within the receivership 

estate located at 805 Brighton Court, San Diego, California. See ECF No. 76-1, Ex. A; ECF

No. 148-1 at 5. Receivership Entity 6050 El Cajon Blvd, LLC purchased the Brighton 

Court property for $950,000 on December 23, 2015. ECF No. 148-2, Freitag Decl. ¶ 2; 

see also ECF No. 6 at 6 (Appointment Order listing 6050 El Cajon Blvd, LLC as a 

receivership entity). 

Following her appointment, the Receiver and her staff performed an analysis of the 

value of the Brighton Court property, by reviewing automated valuation scores for the 

property and surveying the market-comparable properties. ECF No. 148-1 at 5. The 

Receiver also interviewed licensed brokers with experience selling residential properties 

in the same area, ultimately selecting Pacific Pines Real Estate (“Broker”) as the broker to 

list the property for sale on the Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) at the end of September 

2019 with a listing price of $1,249,900. Id.; Freitag Decl. ¶ 3. Broker listed the property on 

its own website in addition to the MLS and held an open house, ultimately receiving two 

offers at or near the full list price. After negotiations, the property went into escrow in early 

November 2019 with a purchase price of $1,275,000. The intended buyer is Gregory John 

and JoAnne Bliss Armer (“Buyer”). Id. ¶ 4.

Significantly, the Brighton Court property is one of seven properties in the 

receivership estate encumbered by a deed of trust in favor of Axos Bank. Another such 

property was the 1617 Thomas Avenue property, whose sale the Court has already 

approved. ECF No. 163. See also ECF No. 148-2, Freitag Decl. ¶ 5. According to the 

Receiver’s calculations, the total estimated market value of the other five properties subject 

to the Axos Bank portfolio loan (not including the 1617 Thomas Avenue or Brighton Court 

properties) is $8,244,000. ECF No. 148-1 at 6 n.1. As explained in the Court’s prior order 

on the 1617 Thomas Avenue property, the documents governing the loan provide for partial 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 8 of 23
9

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

release prices to facilitate the sale of separate properties. See ECF No. 163 at 7. The 

Receiver’s estimate of the release price for the Brighton Court property is $1,183,000, and 

the Receiver represents to the Court in the Motion that she will verify the principal and 

interest balances, as well as the release price, prior to closing.2 ECF No. 148-1 at 6. 

The Receiver filed the Brighton Court Motion on December 3, 2019. ECF No. 148. 

The Receiver provided a breakdown of the key terms of the proposed Residential Purchase 

Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (“Purchase Agreement”) between the Receiver 

and Buyer therein. According to those terms, the sale is subject to qualified overbids 

pursuant to the overbid and auction process mandated by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2002, and 

described in more detail below. Buyer has deposited $40,000 into escrow. Per the listing 

agreement, the Receiver intends to pay Broker a commission of $12,000, plus 2.5% of the 

gross sale price to be paid to Buyer’s broker, for a total commission of $43,875.3 See ECF 

No. 148-1 at 7.

Additionally, the Receiver proposed compliance with the overbid and auction 

process set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2002 by publishing the following notice once a 

week for four weeks in the San Diego Union-Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation 

in San Diego County:

 

2 During the January 24, 2020 hearing, the Court confirmed on the record that this 

estimate remains accurate, although the timing of the closings on the Thomas Avenue and 

Brighton Court properties may affect these numbers slightly.

3 The Court notes that if the proposed sale is approved, the Receiver’s request for authority 

to pay the Broker’s commission has already been granted by the Court’s December 5, 2019 

Order Authorizing Hiring of Agents and Brokers. See ECF No. 153 (“[T]he Receiver is 

authorized to hire brokers, auctioneers, and similar agents to list, market, and . . . to sell 

such property as she is otherwise authorized to sell. In other words, to the extent the 

Receiver is authorized to sell property, the Court authorizes her to pay the expenses of 

selling it.”).

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 9 of 23
10

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In the action pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

California, Case No. 19-CV-01628-LAB-AHG, Securities and Exchange 

Commission v. Gina Champion-Cain, et al., notice is hereby given that the 

court-appointed receiver will conduct a public auction for the real property 

located at 805 Brighton Court in San Diego County, California. Sale is subject 

to Court confirmation after the auction is held. Minimum bid price is at least 

$1,325,000. The auction will take place on December 19, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. 

in front of the entrance to the United States Courthouse, 221 W. Broadway, 

San Diego, California. To be allowed to participate in the auction, prospective 

purchasers must meet certain bid qualification requirements, including 

submitting a signed purchase and sale agreement, an earnest money deposit 

of $44,000, and proof of funds. All bidders must be qualified by 5:00 p.m. PT 

on December 17, 2019, by submitting the required materials to the

receiver at 401 W. A Street, Suite 1830, San Diego, California, 92101. 

Id. at 11. For those interested in qualifying as bidders, the notice also provided a phone 

number and email address for the relevant point of contact. Id.

On January 13, 2020, the Receiver filed a Notice of Non-Receipt of Qualified 

Overbids regarding the Brighton Court Motion. ECF No. 208. There, the Receiver reported 

that, consistent with the Motion, she published the above notice of the sale in the San Diego 

Union-Tribune as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2002 and also posted the sale motion on the 

receivership website www.anireceivership.com. Id. Additionally, the Broker continued to 

market the property and notify potential purchasers about the opportunity to submit an 

overbid and the proposed deadline to do so. Id. No overbids were submitted. Id. Therefore,

Gregory John and JoAnne Bliss Armer remain the intended Buyer.

The Court has reviewed the documents submitted by the Receiver in support of the 

Brighton Court Motion and finds the purchase price of $1,275,000 to be fair and 

reasonable. This price exceeds the listing price by $25,100 and exceeds the 2015 purchase 

price of the property by $325,000. ECF No. 148-2, Freitag Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. Before Buyer and 

Receiver entered into the Purchase Agreement, Broker listed the property on MLS, held an 

open house, and showed the property to interested buyers. Id. ¶ 7. The parties also 

negotiated the terms of sale, going back and forth twice with counter-offers before coming 

to a final agreement on terms and price of the sale. See ECF No. 148-3 at 13, 14.

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 10 of 23
11

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Moreover, the Receiver’s publication of notice seeking qualified overbids in the San 

Diego Union-Tribune complies with the requirements for the public sale procedures set 

forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001(a) and 2002. Therefore, upon review of the relevant factual 

history and the Purchase Agreement itself, the Court finds the Purchase Agreement was 

negotiated at arm’s-length and, further, that the Receiver implemented sufficient 

safeguards by way of the notice and overbid process to solicit the highest possible price for 

the property despite significant time and cost restraints. The Court is thus satisfied that the 

intent of the statutory scheme—to ensure that the best and highest possible price is paid for 

property within the receivership estate—has been fulfilled. The proposed broker’s 

commission of approximately 3.5% of the purchase price (with 2.5% to go to the Buyer’s 

broker and only $12,000 to go to Broker) is consistent with industry standards and, as noted 

above, the Court has already authorized Receiver to pay the Broker’s commission and all 

sale costs in connection to any approved property sale. ECF No. 153.

Perhaps most importantly, the Receiver estimates that the principal balance of the 

Axos Bank portfolio loan will be approximately $3.2 million after the sale of 1617 Thomas 

Avenue (already approved) and 805 Brighton Court, while the estimated market value of 

the other five properties subject to the loan is $8,244,000. Thus, the Receiver estimates that 

net proceeds from the sale of all of the properties encumbered by the Axos Bank loan, if 

sold within the next six months, will produce a net recovery to the receivership estate 

between $3.5 and $4 million in the aggregate, not including rental revenues accrued in the 

interim. ECF No. 148-1 at 6. Thus, approving the sale of the Brighton Court property will 

permit the Receiver to pay off a significant portion of the remaining balance on the Axos 

Bank loan and help the Receiver to sooner realize a significant recovery to the estate, for 

the benefit of all creditors. 

Finally, the Court questioned the Receiver further at the hearing to clarify certain 

details of the proposed sale, including, e.g., whether the Receiver’s estimate in the Motion 

regarding the amount to be paid to Axos Bank from the proceeds remains accurate, 

confirming the approximate balance that will be left on the Axos Bank loan after the 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 11 of 23
12

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

closings of this property and the Thomas Avenue property encumbered by the same deed 

of trust, and the status of the Receiver’s efforts to sell the five other properties encumbered 

by the loan. Based on these considerations, and noting in particular the lack of any express 

opposition to the Motion, the Court finds the Receiver has sufficiently established that the 

proposed sale of 805 Brighton Court and proposed distribution of the sale proceeds are 

consistent with principles of equity and the goal of a receivership to ensure the orderly and 

efficient administration of the estate for the benefit of creditors. See Hardy, 803 F.2d at 

1038.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 148) and APPROVES the 

sale of 805 Brighton Court, San Diego, California to Buyer Gregory John and JoAnne Bliss 

Armer at the proposed purchase price of $1,275,000, to be paid in cash. The Court orders 

the proceeds of the sale to be distributed from escrow at the close of sale as follows:

(1)Payment of the Broker’s Commission in the amount of $43,875 shall be paid to 

Pacific Pines Real Estate;

(2)Payment of any outstanding real property taxes, to the extent any are due; 

(3)Payment of reasonable and customary costs of sale, such as escrow fees, title 

insurance, and recording fees. The Receiver shall provide a full accounting of 

sale costs once the sale is complete for the Court to take into consideration in 

approving future real property sales; 

(4)Payment of the remainder of the sale proceeds to Axos Bank to go towards the 

balance of the portfolio loan.

B. Auctioneer Motion (ECF No. 150)

The Receiver’s Motion to engage a licensed auctioneer, utilize a liquor license 

broker to sell liquor licenses, and to sell personal property explains that the receivership 

estate includes restaurant and retail operations, many of which had to be quickly closed 

during the initial month of the Receiver’s appointment due to the cash shortage in the 

receivership. ECF No. 150-1 at 2. These operations had equipment and other personal 

property of material value, including liquor licenses. Therefore, the Receiver seeks to sell 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 12 of 23
13

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the personal property so that the former restaurant and other retail locations can be turned 

over to the possession of the respective landlords. Id. The Receiver proposes that the 

personal property be sold by licensed auctioneers, and plans to engage Abamex Auction 

Company as the primary auctioneer. With respect to the liquor licenses, the Receiver 

proposes to use AAA Liquor License Consulting to market and sell the liquor licenses. Id.

at 3. Broadly, the Auctioneer Motion requests authority to sell personal property including 

“furniture, fixtures, equipment, and liquor licenses associated with the closed restaurant, 

retail and other operations,” as well as “office furniture, computer equipment and some 

general household furniture.” ECF No. 150-1 at 7-8.4 The Receiver also requests waiver of 

further notices/appraisals regarding sales of receivership personalty. Id. at 9-10.

Notably, the Motion has already been granted in significant part by Chief Judge 

Burns in his Order Authorizing the Hiring of Agents and Brokers, which specifically 

authorizes the Receiver to hire “brokers, auctioneers, and similar agents to list, market, and 

to sell such property as she is otherwise authorized to sell.” ECF No. 153 at 1.

Additionally, as explained in the Court’s Order Establishing Uniform Property Sale 

Procedures (ECF No. 219), sales of personal property within a receivership estate are not 

constrained by the same statutory notice and auction requirements as sales of real property. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2004 (requiring sales of personalty to comply with § 2001 “unless the court 

orders otherwise.”). Thus, the Court has already waived the requirements of § 2001 and 

ordered that the Receiver need not file noticed motions seeking approval of such sales, 

which renders moot the same request in the Auctioneer Motion. Further, the Court adopted 

 

4 Because the personalty at issue goes beyond the restaurant equipment and liquor licenses, 

the Receiver notes that it may also be deemed necessary to engage one or more additional 

auctioneers to sell the personalty, particularly for the office furniture, fixtures, and 

equipment and household furniture. Additionally, the Receiver may engage other agents 

such as art dealers and auto dealers to sell other personalty and requests “authority to do so 

in her business judgment and at rates competitive in the auctioneer/broker industry[,]” 

promising to “use her experience in selling personal property to obtain the highest and best 

net recovery from all personal property assets.” ECF No. 150-1 at 3. 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 13 of 23
14

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Receiver’s proposed personalty sale procedures in full, which (1) require the Receiver 

to follow standard auction procedures through one or more licensed auctioneers for sales 

of personal property; (2) require sales of liquor licenses to be approved by the California 

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (3) authorize the Receiver to use AAA Liquor 

License Consulting to assist in marketing the licenses and negotiating sales of liquor 

licenses that are sold to third parties not associated with former restaurant locations; and 

(4) authorize AAA Liquor License Consulting to receive the industry standard of a 

10% commission, to be paid by the buyers. ECF No. 219 at 9-10.

Having reviewed the Auctioneer Motion, the Court finds nothing requested therein 

to be inconsistent with the procedures the Court has already authorized. In the interest of 

maximum clarity, however, the Court expressly WAIVES the requirements of 

28 U.S.C. § 2001 and § 2004 regarding the appointment of appraisers by the Court and 

publication of notices with respect to personalty sales. Finally, as explained above, no 

express opposition to the Auctioneer Motion has been filed. Based on these considerations, 

the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 150) in full. The Receiver may engage Abamex 

as the primary auctioneer of restaurant equipment and use AAA Liquor License Consulting 

as the broker to market and sell liquor licenses. This grant of authority also includes 

authorizing the Receiver to engage additional liquor license brokers and/or auctioneers as 

she deems necessary to sell the personalty in the receivership estate, particularly since, in 

the Court’s view, Chief Judge Burns has already authorized the Receiver to engage such 

agents as she sees fit, as long as the related property sales themselves are approved.

The Receiver shall be bound by the Court’s Uniform Property Sale Procedures in 

conducting these sales. The grant of authority also incorporates by reference the Receiver’s 

own acknowledgment in the Auctioneer Motion that “some of the Personal Property is 

subject to UCC security interests in favor of lenders[,]” and that “[n]othing herein is 

intended to adjudicate or alter any UCC security interests or rights of secured lenders with 

respect to Personal Property assets[.]” ECF No. 150-1 at 5. The Court finds that this 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 14 of 23
15

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

assurance adequately responds to CalPrivate Bank’s request that its claim to a first-priority 

perfected security interest in certain receivership assets not be deemed waived.

C. Rancho Mirage Motion (ECF No. 165)

The Rancho Mirage Motion concerns a single-family residence located at 83 Royal 

Saint Georges Way, Rancho Mirage, California. ECF No. 165-1 at 5. The property is part 

of the receivership estate because Relief Defendant American National Investments, Inc. 

purchased the property for $3.2 million on April 15, 2019. Id.

Following her appointment, the Receiver and her staff performed an analysis of the 

value of the Rancho Mirage property, by reviewing automated valuation scores for the 

property and surveying the market-comparable properties. Id. Additionally, the Receiver 

took into account that, prior to Relief Defendant’s purchase, the property had previously 

been on the market for 593 days. The Receiver also interviewed licensed brokers with 

experience selling residential properties in the same area, two of whom believed that the 

April 2019 $3.2 million purchase price was too high and recommended a sale price of $3 

million instead. Id. Because of its recent lengthy exposure on the market, there was little 

interest from brokers generally. Ultimately, the Receiver selected Keller Williams Realty 

(“Broker”), which listed the property for sale on the MLS for the list price of $2,999,000 

on or about October 5, 2019. Id. at 6. Broker listed the property on its own website in 

addition to the MLS and held an open house, ultimately receiving two offers at the full list 

price in cash a few weeks apart. Id. After negotiations, the property went into escrow on or 

around November 15, 2019 with a purchase price of $2,999,000, to be paid in cash. The 

intended buyer is Paul Antle (“Buyer”). Id.

The Rancho Mirage Property is encumbered by a deed of trust in favor of Seattle 

Funding Group (“SFG”). The outstanding balance on the interest-only loan from SFG is 

approximately $1.55 million, and deferred interest through December 31, 2019 is 

$26,666.69. Id. Notably, both the short-term payment rate and the actual note rate will jump 

to 8.99% (from 5.99% and 8.49%, respectively) on March 1, 2020, increasing the debt 

service payment from $7,737.08 per month to $14,608.75 per month. Id. at 6 n.2. However, 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 15 of 23
16

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SFG has agreed to waive default interest if the loan is brought current and taxes are paid 

current, the loan does not go into monetary default again, and the loan is paid in full before 

the maturity date in November 2020. Id. at 6. 

The Receiver filed the Rancho Mirage Motion on December 12, 2019. ECF No. 165. 

The Receiver provided a breakdown of the key terms of the proposed Residential Purchase 

Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions, including an Addendum (“Purchase 

Agreement”) between the Receiver and Buyer therein. According to those terms, the sale 

is subject to qualified overbids pursuant to the overbid and auction process mandated by 

28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2002. Buyer has deposited $89,990 into escrow. Per the listing

agreement, the Receiver intends to pay Broker a commission of 4% of the gross sale price, 

which will be split with Buyer’s broker, with 2.5% going to Buyer’s broker and 1.5% going 

to Broker. ECF No. 165-1 at 7. The Receiver intends to pay the full balance owed to SFG 

directly from escrow at closing, and estimates the net proceeds from the sale after that 

payment will be $1.26 million.

Additionally, the Receiver proposed compliance with the overbid and auction 

process set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2002 by publishing the following notice once a 

week for four weeks in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation in the Rancho 

Mirage area:

In the action pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 

California, Case No. 19-CV-01628-LAB-AHG, Securities and Exchange 

Commission v. Gina Champion-Cain, et al., notice is hereby given that the 

court-appointed receiver will conduct a public auction for the real property 

located at 83 Royal St. Georges Way, Rancho Mirage in Riverside County, 

California. Sale is subject to Court confirmation after the auction is held. 

Minimum bid price is at least $3,049,000. The auction will take place on 

January 9, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in front of the entrance to the United States 

Courthouse, 221 W. Broadway, San Diego, California. To be allowed to 

participate in the auction, prospective purchasers must meet certain bid 

qualification requirements, including submitting a signed purchase and sale 

agreement, an earnest money deposit of $98,989, and proof of funds. All 

bidders must be qualified by 5:00 p.m. PT on January 7, 2020, by submitting 

the required materials to the receiver at 401 W. A Street, Suite 1830, San 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 16 of 23
17

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Diego, California, 92101. 

Id. at 11. For those interested in qualifying as bidders, the notice also provided a phone 

number and email address for the relevant point of contact. Id.

In her Reply to the present Motion, the Receiver reported that in addition to running 

the above-described publication of notice in the Desert Sun as proposed, she also posted 

the sale motion on the receivership website www.anireceivership.com and continued to 

market the property through Broker, notifying potential purchasers about the opportunity 

to submit an overbid and the deadline to do so. ECF No. 209. No qualified overbids were 

received by the deadline of January 7, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Id. Therefore, Paul Antle remains 

the intended Buyer. 

Upon review of the documents submitted by the Receiver in support of the Rancho 

Mirage Motion, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 165). Although it is lower than 

the previous purchase price of $3.2 million, the proposed purchase price of $2,999,000 is 

nonetheless fair and reasonable when viewed in light of all relevant circumstances. As 

already explained, multiple brokers familiar with the real estate market in the area opined 

that the previous purchase price was too high, and that the property would not sell for a 

similar or higher price after its recent lengthy exposure to the market. The Court must also 

take into account the need for the sale to occur quickly due to the nature of the Receiver’s 

agreement with SFG. If the proceeds of the sale are not realized and used to pay off the 

loan in full prior to March 1, 2020, the debt service payments on the SFG loan will nearly 

double. Further, if the Receiver does not meet her end of bargain by November 2020, SFG’s 

agreement to waive default interest will also fall through. Therefore, the Court recognizes 

that time was of the essence in finding a buyer, and given the amount of time the property 

previously languished on the market before Relief Defendant’s purchase, the Receiver 

acted reasonably in taking the advice of knowledgeable brokers to choose the list price (and 

ultimate purchase price) of $2,999,000. And after the sale is completed, the Receiver will 

be able to pay off a significant debt of the receivership estate and return a net gain of 

approximately $1.26 million to the estate, which will ultimately benefit all creditors.

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 17 of 23
18

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Additionally, before Buyer and Receiver entered into the Purchase Agreement, 

Broker listed the property on MLS, held an open house, and showed the property to 

interested buyers. The Receiver continued to market the property after entering into the 

contingent Purchase Agreement with Buyer and made significant efforts to solicit qualified 

overbids. The proposed broker’s commission of approximately 4% of the gross sale price, 

to be split with Buyer’s broker, is consistent with industry standards and, as noted above, 

the Court has already authorized Receiver to pay the Broker’s commission and all sale 

costs in connection to any approved property sale. ECF No. 153.

Moreover, the Receiver’s publication of notice seeking qualified overbids in the 

Desert Sun and on the receivership website complies with the requirements for the public 

sale procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2001(a) and 2002. Therefore, upon review of the 

relevant factual history and the Purchase Agreement itself, the Court finds the Purchase 

Agreement represents a fair, arm’s-length negotiation and, further, that the Receiver 

implemented adequate safeguards by way of the notice and overbid process to solicit the 

highest possible price for the property despite significant time and cost restraints. As the 

Court has found with respect to the other approved real estate sales, the Court is satisfied 

that the proposed sale is consistent with the aims of an equitable receivership to ensure the 

orderly and efficient administration of the estate for the benefit of creditors. See Hardy, 

803 F.2d at 1038. 

Finally, the Court questioned the Receiver further at the hearing to clarify certain 

details of the proposed sale, including, e.g., confirming that the details included in the 

Motion regarding the Receiver’s agreement with Seattle Funding Group are still current, 

confirming that the Receiver could not state the precise amount to be paid to SFG at 

closing, but that SFG and the Receiver agreed that the Court should require payment of an 

amount sufficient to discharge the SFG lien, and confirming that the Receiver has not 

entered into agreements with any other creditors regarding the use of the estimated 

remaining net proceeds, and that those proceeds will go into the receivership estate. Based 

on these considerations, and noting in particular the lack of opposition to the Motion, the 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 18 of 23
19

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Court finds the Receiver has sufficiently established that the proposed sale of the Rancho 

Mirage property and proposed distribution of the sale proceeds is in the best interest of the 

receivership estate and should be approved.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 165) and APPROVES the 

sale of 83 Royal Saint Georges Way, Rancho Mirage, California to the intended Buyer 

Paul Antle at the proposed purchase price of $2,999,000, to be paid in cash. The Court 

orders the proceeds of the sale to be distributed from escrow at the close of sale as follows:

(1)Payment of the Broker’s Commission in the amount of $119,960 shall be paid to 

Keller Williams Realty, which will bear the responsibility of fulfilling the 

agreement to split that amount with Buyer’s broker;

(2)Payment of any outstanding real property taxes, to the extent any are due; 

(3)Payment of reasonable and customary costs of sale, such as escrow fees, title 

insurance, and recording fees. The Receiver shall provide a full accounting of 

sale costs once the sale is complete for the Court to take into consideration in 

approving future real property sales; 

(4)Payment to Seattle Funding Group directly from escrow at closing, in an amount 

sufficient to extinguish SFG’s interest in the property;

(5)The remainder of the proceeds will go to the receivership estate. 

The Court’s grant of this Motion should not be construed to extinguish any purported 

creditor’s asserted interest in the remainder of the proceeds that will go into the estate.

D. Patio on 101 and Patio on Goldfinch Motions (ECF Nos. 169, 176)

Unlike the other motions at issue in this Order, the Patio on 101 and Patio on 

Goldfinch Motions are Joint Motions joined by the SEC and Defendant Champion-Cain. 

The Joint Motions are considered together because they ask for nearly identical relief. 

Broadly, both motions concern former restaurant spaces that were leased to receivership 

entities by landlord entities. Subject to court approval, the Receiver and the landlords have 

entered into sale agreements allowing the landlord entities to purchase the liquor licenses, 

the restaurant equipment, and other personal property in the former restaurant locations. In 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 19 of 23
20

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

both cases, the landlords have further agreed to excuse unpaid rent owed by the 

receivership entity tenants as part of the sale agreements.

More specifically, in the Patio on 101 Motion, the parties ask the Court to approve 

the sale agreement between the Receiver and Buyer MP1 RFE, LLC, who leased 

commercial space to receivership entity ANI Commercial CA III, LP for the purpose of 

operating the restaurant The Patio on 101. ECF No. 169 at 2. Now that The Patio on 101 

has closed, Buyer wishes to obtain restaurant furniture, fixtures, and equipment left in the 

space as well as the liquor license associated with the restaurant for a total price of 

$120,000. Per the terms of the proposed sale agreement, Buyer also agrees to release any 

and all claims for unpaid rent owed by ANI Commercial CA III, LP or the receivership 

estate, which the Receiver estimated at approximately $51,000 through November 30, 

2019. Id. at 3.

In considering whether the tentative agreement with Buyer is in the best interest of 

the receivership estate, the Receiver obtained appraisals from Abamex Auction Company 

estimating that the personal property would fetch between $18,000 and $36,000 at auction, 

netting only $15,000-$30,000 after auctioneer expenses. Id. at 2-3. Additionally, the 

Receiver obtained an estimate from a licensed broker who specializes in the purchase and 

sale of liquor licenses in California as well as from an attorney with experience in liquor 

license matters, who opined that the liquor license value is approximately $100,000-

$150,000 (if tied to the leased premises) or approximately $65,000-$80,000 if sold to a 

buyer who has to have the approved location associated with the license changed. Id. at 3. 

Based on these estimates, the Receiver calculates that the highest possible price the estate 

could obtain for the personalty and liquor license, if pulled from the premises, would be 

$110,000. Therefore, the Receiver believes that the sale agreement with Buyer MP1 RFE, 

LLC for $120,000 and forgiveness of unpaid rent will bring the highest possible amount of 

money to the receivership estate, compared to having to sell the personal property through 

auction and selling the liquor license on the open market. Id. at 3-4.

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 20 of 23
21

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Similarly, the Patio on Goldfinch Motion is premised on a sale agreement, subject 

to Court approval, between Receiver and Buyer Mission Hills, Retail, LLC, who initially 

leased the restaurant space to receivership entity American National Investments, Inc. ECF 

No. 176 at 2. The lease was later amended and assigned to ANI Commercial CA III, LP. 

Id. Now that the restaurant has closed, Buyer seeks to purchase the restaurant furniture, 

fixtures, and equipment in the former space as well as the liquor license associated with 

the premises for a proposed purchase price of $152,000. As part of the agreement, Buyer 

will also release any and all claims for unpaid rent owed by ANI Commercial CA III, LP, 

which the Receiver estimates at $77,000 through December 31, 2019. Again, the Receiver 

obtained an appraisal from Abamex Auction Company estimating the value of the personal 

property to be $68,895, which would net approximately $60,000, and the Receiver obtained 

an estimate of the value of liquor license at $100,000-$150,000 (if tied to the leased 

premises) or approximately $65,000-$80,000 if sold to a buyer who has to have the 

approved location associated with the license changed. Id. at 3. Consequently, the Receiver 

estimates that the highest possible price the estate could obtain for the personalty and liquor 

license, if pulled from the premises, would be $140,000, and thus asserts that the proposed 

sale for $152,000 plus forgiveness of unpaid rent is fair, reasonable, and exceeds the value 

the Receiver could otherwise obtain from these assets. Id. at 3-4.

Based on these considerations, the Court GRANTS both unopposed Joint Motions

(ECF Nos. 169, 176). The Court finds no significant analysis is required here, because the 

details of the proposed sales, as outlined above, are fair and reasonable on their face. The 

Court has reviewed the underlying sale agreements and finds them consistent with the 

representations in the Joint Motions. The Court is persuaded that not only are the proposed 

sales fair and reasonable, but they also represent the best and most efficient available use 

of the personalty at issue for the benefit of the receivership estate. Further, the sales at issue 

involve only personal property. Thus, in light of the Court’s Order Establishing Uniform 

Sale Procedures (ECF No. 219) and its analysis above regarding the Auctioneer Motion, 

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 21 of 23
22

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Court finds these proposed personalty sales have already met the Court’s established 

requirements and have been impliedly approved under its prior analyses.

The Court thus APPROVES the proposed sales and distributions as follows:

(1)With respect to the sale of personal property and liquor license associated with 

the restaurant formerly known as Patio on 101, the Court approves payment of 

$120,000 from Buyer MP1 RFE, LLC to the Receiver, less escrow costs, with all 

net proceeds to go to the receivership estate.

(2) With respect to the sale of personal property and liquor license associated with 

the restaurant formerly known as Patio on Goldfinch, the Court approves 

payment of $152,000 from Buyer Mission Hills, Retail, LLC to the Receiver, less 

escrow costs, with all net proceeds to go to the receivership estate.

The Court’s grant of these Motions should not be construed to extinguish any purported 

creditor’s asserted interest in the remainder of the proceeds that will go into the estate.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) the Receiver’s Motion for (A) Approval of Sale of Real Property Located at 805 

Brighton Court; and (B) Authority to Pay Broker’s Commission (ECF No. 148) is 

GRANTED;

(2) the Receiver’s Motion for Authority to (A) Engage Licensed Auctioneer, (B) 

Utilize Liquor License Broker to Sell Liquor Licenses, and (C) Sell Personal Property 

(ECF No. 150) is GRANTED; 

(3) the Receiver’s Motion for (A) Approval of Sale of Rancho Mirage Property; 

and (B) Authority to Pay Broker’s Commission (ECF No. 165) is GRANTED;

(4) the Joint Motion for Approval of Sale of Personal Property and Liquor License 

Associated with the Restaurant Formerly Known as the Patio on 101 filed by the Receiver, 

the SEC, and Defendant Gina-Champion Cain (ECF No. 169) is GRANTED;

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 22 of 23
23

3:19-cv-1628-LAB-AHG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(5) the Joint Motion for Approval of Sale of Personal Property and Liquor License 

Associated with the Patio on Goldfinch Restaurant filed by the Receiver, the SEC, and 

Defendant Gina-Champion Cain (ECF No. 176) is GRANTED.

Nothing herein should be construed as a waiver or extinguishment of any purported 

creditor’s claim of any interest in the net proceeds of the approved sales of receivership 

assets that are slated for distribution to the receivership estate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01628-TWR-AHG Document 226 Filed 01/24/20 PageID.<pageID>

Page 23 of 23