Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-canb-3_07-ap-03074/USCOURTS-canb-3_07-ap-03074-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrea A. Wirum
Plaintiff
Greene Radovsky Maloney Share & Hennigh, LLP
Defendant

Document Text:

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

MEMORANDUM RE CROSS MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -1-

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re

SDR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Debtor.

 

ANDREA A. WIRUM, TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GREENE RADOVSKY MALONEY SHARE &

HENNIGH, LLP, 

Defendant. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-34008 TEC

Chapter 7

Adv. Proc. No. 07-3074 TC 

MEMORANDUM RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The court held a hearing on February 29, 2008 regarding the

parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. Dennis D. Davis

appeared for Plaintiff. James F. Fotenos and Russell D. Pollock

appeared for Defendant. Upon due consideration, and for the

reasons stated below, both motions are denied.

//

Signed and Filed: March 03, 2008

________________________________________

THOMAS E. CARLSON

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

________________________________________

Entered on Docket 

March 04, 2008

GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK 

U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 07-03074 Doc# 27 Filed: 03/03/08 Entered: 03/04/08 14:52:04 Page 1 of 3 
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

MEMORANDUM RE CROSS MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -2-

A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the parties to

the release intended it to apply to the present action against

Defendant. Summary judgment cannot be granted for Plaintiff,

because the language describing by category the parties and claims

released covers the claims raised against Defendant in the present

action, and because Suttle had an incentive to secure Defendant’s 

release. Summary judgment cannot be granted for Defendant, because

the present action was pending on the date the release was

executed, and the release permits the prosecution of actions by

Plaintiff without stating that the present action is to be

released. It is because there is some evidence that the parties

did not intend the release to apply to Defendant, that the present

case is distinguishable from General Motors Corp. v. Superior

Court, 12 Cal. App. 4th 435 (1993).

Neither party is entitled to summary judgment as to whether

SDR was obligated to indemnify Suttle under section 317(d) of the

Corporations Code. Although a judicial decision is not required

for an administrative investigation to be decided “on the merits” 

within the meaning of section 317(d), a triable issue of fact

exists as to whether the SEC investigation at issue here was

resolved on the merits in favor of Suttle.

Neither party is entitled to summary judgment as to whether

SDR agreed to indemnify Suttle. A triable issue of fact exists as

to whether indemnification was conditioned upon receipt of certain

payments from Woodall and Garland.

**END OF MEMORANDUM**

Case: 07-03074 Doc# 27 Filed: 03/03/08 Entered: 03/04/08 14:52:04 Page 2 of 3 
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 Service List

Dennis D. Davis, Esq.

Goldberg, Stinnett, Davis & Linchey

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2900

San Francisco, CA 94104 

James F. Fotenos, Esq.

Russell D. Pollock, Esq.

Greene Radovsky Maloney Share & Hennigh LLP

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 4000

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Case: 07-03074 Doc# 27 Filed: 03/03/08 Entered: 03/04/08 14:52:04 Page 3 of 3