Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 717-11 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 10
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 717-11 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 10
`
`EXHIBIT 10
`EXHIBIT 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 717-11 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 10
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`Civil Division
`Northwest District, Van Nuys Courthouse East, Department U
`
`21VECV00575
`EUROPLAY CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. vs PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY
`
`November 17, 2021
`8:30 AM
`
`Judge: Honorable Bernie C. LaForteza
`Judicial Assistant: Christine Gyimesi
`Courtroom Assistant: L. Vince-Cruz
`
`CSR: None
`ERM: None
`Deputy Sheriff: None
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For Plaintiff(s): Michael Gerard Fletcher By: Bruce D. Poltrock Via LACourtConnect
`For Defendant(s): Michael Elliot Bubman Via LACourtConnect; Christopher Shawn Lavin and
`Michael Baratz Via LACourtConnect
`
`
`NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene
`
`The matter is called for hearing.
`
`The tentative ruling is posted on the court's online website.
`
`The Court has read and considered the moving papers, arguments of counsel, and the law.
`Counsel submit on the Court's tentative ruling, and the Court hereby adopts its tentative ruling as
`the final order of the Court as set forth herein this minute order.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`This is a collection action filed by Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Inc., Europlay Capital
`Advisors, LLC, Claria Innovations, LLC, and Monto Holdings Pty Ltd (collectively, plaintiffs),
`alleging default on $19 million of demand instruments by defendant PersonalWeb Technologies,
`LLC. On April 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against defendant and Does 1 through 100
`for the following causes of action: (1—4) breach of promissory note (four different causes of
`action, each brought by a different plaintiff); (5) recovery of personal property; (6) conversion;
`and (7) specific performance for appointment of receiver.
`
`On August 10, 2021, Amazon.Com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Twitch Interactive,
`Inc. (collectively, Amazon) filed this motion for leave to intervene. No opposition was field. On
`August 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a statement of non-opposition to Amazon’s motion.
`
`Minute Order
`
`Page 1 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 717-11 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 10
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`Civil Division
`Northwest District, Van Nuys Courthouse East, Department U
`
`21VECV00575
`EUROPLAY CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. vs PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY
`
`November 17, 2021
`8:30 AM
`
`Judge: Honorable Bernie C. LaForteza
`Judicial Assistant: Christine Gyimesi
`Courtroom Assistant: L. Vince-Cruz
`
`CSR: None
`ERM: None
`Deputy Sheriff: None
`
`Hearing on Amazon’s motion was held on November 5, 2021, at which time the Court took the
`matter under submission in order to further consider the issues, especially as to the nature of
`Amazon’s interest in the litigation as sufficient or insufficient to justify granting intervention. To
`this end, the Court granted Amazon leave to file a supplemental brief in support of intervention,
`which Amazon filed on November 12, 2021. The Court’s findings upon review and analysis of
`this supplemental brief as well as further review and analysis of the issues and relevant law are
`included, infra, at Part III, subpart (b) of this order.[1]
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Code of Civil Procedure section 387 subdivision (d) provides two bases by which a nonparty
`might seek intervention, the first providing being that the trial court must grant leave to
`intervene, and the second providing that the trial court may grant leave to intervene within its
`sound discretion. Both prongs of the statute require that the petitioning nonparty be sufficiently
`interested in the current action.
`
`a. The first prong provides that the Court is required to grant intervention.
`
`Under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 subdivision (d)(1)(B), a nonparty has the statutory
`right to intervene in litigation between others where the nonparty claims an interest in the
`property or transaction involved in the litigation and is so situated that any judgment rendered in
`the nonparty's absence “may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest.”
`
`Thus, the trial court must grant a non-party’s motion for intervention where the non-party is able
`to show: (1) its direct and immediate interest in the property or transaction of the action; and (2)
`that the litigation is such that the non-party’s interested may be substantially prejudiced by any
`judgment rendered in its absence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 387 subd. (d)(1)(B); see also Muller v.
`Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515 (Muller) [it is the burden of the nonparty petitioner
`seeking intervention to show it is sufficiently interested under statute].)
`
`b. The second prong provides that the Court may grant intervention as a proper exercise of its
`discretion.
`
`Under Code of Civil Procedure § 387 subdivision (d)(2), “The court may, upon timely
`application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an
`Minute Order
`Page 2 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 717-11 Filed 01/07/22 Page 4 of 10
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`Civil Division
`Northwest District, Van Nuys Courthouse East, Department U
`
`21VECV00575
`EUROPLAY CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. vs PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY
`
`November 17, 2021
`8:30 AM
`
`Judge: Honorable Bernie C. LaForteza
`Judicial Assistant: Christine Gyimesi
`Courtroom Assistant: L. Vince-Cruz
`
`CSR: None
`ERM: None
`Deputy Sheriff: None
`
`interest in the matter in litigation, or in the successor of either of the parties, or an interest against
`both.”
`
`Thus, the trial court may properly exercise its discretion to permit a nonparty petitioner to
`intervene where: (1) the nonparty has followed proper procedures; (2) the nonparty has a direct
`and immediate interest in the action; (3) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the
`litigation; and (4) the reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties. (Western
`Heritage Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1205.) The trial court may also
`properly exercise its discretion to deny a nonparty petitioner’s motion to intervene upon finding
`the nonparty does not have “a direct and immediate interest in the litigation.” (In re Paul W.
`(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 37, 57 (Paul W.) (“Whether in a particular case intervention should be
`allowed is best determined by a consideration of the facts of that case, and the decision is
`ordinarily left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”); see, e.g., Hinton v. Beck (2009) 176
`Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382—1383; see also, e.g., Squire v. City and County of San Francisco
`(1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 974, 978—979 [trial court’s denial of intervention was not abuse of
`discretion].)
`
`c. Appellate and California Supreme Court decisions establish boundaries for the doctrine and
`guide the Court’s consideration of Amazon’s request as follows.
`
`i. Generally speaking, “simple creditors” have no right to intervention under either the
`mandatory or permissive prong of § 378.
`
`Absent a showing of facts which qualify a non-party’s motion as anything else, e.g. under
`circumstances described, infra, by Part II, subparts (c)(ii), (iii) of this order, a creditor generally
`may not intervene in an action by or against its debtor, as such a creditor does not have a
`sufficiently direct interest in the outcome of litigation to justify the court permitting intervention.
`(Cont’l Vinyl Products Corp. v. Mead Corp. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 543, 550 (Cont’l Vinyl); see
`also Horn v. Volcano Water Co. (1869) 13 Cal. 62, 69 [“an attempt of one creditor to prevent
`another creditor obtaining judgment against the common debtor [is] a proceeding which can find
`no support, either in principle or authority,” except where the petitioning creditor has sufficiently
`secured its interest].)
`
`This rule against intervention even applies where the debtor-party will be rendered unable to pay
`the nonparty creditor’s debt as a result of the proceeding for which the nonparty seeks
`Minute Order
`Page 3 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 717-11 Filed 01/07/22 Page 5 of 10
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`Civil Division
`Northwest District, Van Nuys Courthouse East, Department U
`
`21VECV00575
`EUROPLAY CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. vs PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY
`
`November 17, 2021
`8:30 AM
`
`Judge: Honorable Bernie C. LaForteza
`Judicial Assistant: Christine Gyimesi
`Courtroom Assistant: L. Vince-Cruz
`
`CSR: None
`ERM: None
`Deputy Sheriff: None
`
`intervention. (Cont’l Vinyl, supra, 27 Cal.App.3d at p. 550.) It is thus the burden of any such
`nonparty creditor to show facts beyond these, which should provide that it is not a “simple
`creditor,” but rather a creditor sufficiently interested in the proceeding as a matter of right, and
`this may justify the court’s granting its motion to intervene. (Muller, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d at p.
`515; Olson v. Hopkins (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 638, 643—644 (Olson).)
`
`ii. Allowable intervention by a nonparty creditor.
`
`Where a creditor has obtained, for example, a lien on a debtor’s assets, and that lien could be
`jeopardized by the instant proceedings, the creditor might be sufficiently interested in the
`property which is the subject of the proceedings to justify the court allowing its intervention to
`protect its lien under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 subdivision (d)(2). (See, e.g., Marriage
`of Kerr (2005) 185 Cal.App.3d 130, 134 (Kerr).)
`
`iii. Intervention available in cases of bad-faith parties.
`
`There is another exception arising under Cont’l Vinyl, which provides that an otherwise merely
`consequential interest insufficient to grant intervention may become a direct interest justifying
`intervention where the non-party seeking intervention can show some bad faith or malfeasance
`among the parties to the relevant litigation. (Cont’l Vinyl, supra, 27 Cal.App.3d at p. 551.) This
`might be shown by: (a) facts demonstration a party or parties’ bad faith; (b) the assertion by all
`parties to the litigation of claims adverse to the party seeking intervention; (c) collusion among
`the parties; (d) an impossibility that there will be otherwise asserted a position that should be
`presented in the litigation; and/or (d) that similar circumstances as are present in the case law
`justifying intervention warrant that injustice is likely to result if the Court declines it in the
`instant case. (Ibid.)
`
`Cont’l Vinyl then cites to a number of situations from the case law which illustrate when and
`how these factors might be applied to the litigation as follows (quoting Cont’l Vinyl, supra, 27
`Cal.App.3d at p. 552):
`
`· “The interest of shareholders justifies intervention in an action against a corporation if its
`officers and directors fail to exercise good faith in defending an action against it.” (Citing
`Shively v. Eureka T.G.M. Co. (1900) 129 Cal. 293, 294—295.)
`
`Minute Order
`
`Page 4 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 717-11 Filed 01/07/22 Page 6 of 10
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`Civil Division
`Northwest District, Van Nuys Courthouse East, Department U
`
`21VECV00575
`EUROPLAY CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. vs PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY
`
`November 17, 2021
`8:30 AM
`
`Judge: Honorable Bernie C. LaForteza
`Judicial Assistant: Christine Gyimesi
`Courtroom Assistant: L. Vince-Cruz
`
`CSR: None
`ERM: None
`Deputy Sheriff: None
`
`· “A limited partner can intervene in a suit against his partnership where the general partner
`refuses to defend in good faith.” (Citing Linder v. Vogue Investments, Inc. (1966) 239
`Cal.App.2d 338, 340—341.)
`
`· “The state may intervene in an action to dissolve a corporation to protect the interest of
`shareholders not available to assert their interests where those interests may escheat.” (Citing In
`re Mercantile Guaranty Co. (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 426, 437.)
`
`· “The equitable-beneficial owner of property may intervene in an action in which the trustee-
`legal owner refuses to defend his title or claims adversely to the beneficiary.” (Citing Elm v.
`Elms, 4 Cal.2d 681, 685; citing further, e.g., Coffey v. Greenfield (1890) 55 Cal. 382, 383.)
`
`· “A surety on a bond guaranteeing a party's performance may intervene where the party has
`abandoned the defense of a lawsuit or does not intend to pursue the defense in good faith.”
`(Citing Johnson v. Hayes Cal Builders, Inc. (1963) 60 Cal.2d 572, 575.)
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`a. Amazon’s motion does not show a sufficient interested in the current litigation to justify this
`Court granting intervention. [2]
`
`Here, Amazon seeks intervention on the basis that it holds a $5.4 million judgment against
`defendant[3] and therefore has a direct and fundamental interest in the property and transaction
`involved in the instant case. (Motion, p. 6, ¶ 1.) Amazon alleges that the assets sufficient to
`satisfy Amazon’s $5.4 million judgment are the subject of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against defendant,
`which seeks $19 million on promissory notes and related causes of action. (Id. at p. 7, ¶ 2.)
`Amazon asserts that disposition of the current action will affect its interest, potentially by
`rendering defendant unable to pay its judgment, and thus seeks intervention as of right under
`Code of Civil Procedure section 387 subdivision (d)(1)(B). (Id. at p. 12, ¶ 1.) Alternatively,
`Amazon seeks that the Court grant it leave to intervene as is within the Court’s discretion under
`Code of Civil Procedure section 387 subdivision (d)(2). (Id. at p. 13, ¶ 2.)
`
`In order to prevail on its motion under either prong of statute providing for intervention,
`Amazon’s burden is partly to show facts that it is not merely interested as a “simple creditor,”
`which it might do by showing the existence of a lien or attachment it has on defendant’s assets
`Minute Order
`Page 5 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 717-11 Filed 01/07/22 Page 7 of 10
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`Civil Division
`Northwest District, Van Nuys Courthouse East, Department U
`
`21VECV00575
`EUROPLAY CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. vs PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY
`
`November 17, 2021
`8:30 AM
`
`Judge: Honorable Bernie C. LaForteza
`Judicial Assistant: Christine Gyimesi
`Courtroom Assistant: L. Vince-Cruz
`
`CSR: None
`ERM: None
`Deputy Sheriff: None
`
`and that those assets are somehow the subject of the instant litigation. (Muller, supra, 174
`Cal.App.2d at p. 515; Olson, supra, 269 Cal.App.2d at pp. 643—644; see also Kerr, supra, 185
`Cal.App.3d at p. 134.) Absent such a showing, the Court may not grant Amazon’s motion, as
`Amazon has not shown a sufficiently direct interest in the outcome of litigation to justify the
`Court permitting intervention. (Cont’l Vinyl, supra, 27 Cal.App.3d at p. 550.)
`
`Here, Amazon has shown facts that it holds a judgment against defendant, but not that it has a
`lien or attachment upon any asset which is the subject of and might be disposed by the relevant
`litigation. Amazon, therefore, has presented for the Court precisely the situation as in , and the
`motion is denied.
`
`Plaintiffs filed a statement in non-opposition to Amazon’s motion to intervene, but this is of no
`help, as the parties’ consent to intervention is not a relevant factor under statute.
`
`If Amazon’s interest in pursuing its motion for leave to intervene is, as stated, to protect its
`interest in the $5.4 million judgment it holds against defendant in this action, there is another
`statutory avenue by which Amazon need not intervene in order to do so. Under Code of Civil
`Procedure § 708.410, a judgment creditor can file and serve a “notice of lien” together with a
`certified copy of the judgment, and this shall establish the creditor’s right to payment from any
`recovery by the judgment debtor in the present action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 708.410.)
`
`b. Upon receiving leave to explore and present alternative facts or law to justify the Court
`granting intervention, Amazon reasserts many of its failed arguments.
`
`In the above analysis, the Court explained what precisely needed to occur in order that it might
`find Amazon to be sufficiently interested in the litigation such that intervention could be granted.
`In short, the Court suggested that Amazon’s burden is to show facts that it is not merely
`interested as a “simple creditor.” (See Olson, supra, 269 Cal.App.2d at pp. 643—644; see also
`Kerr, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 134.) Absent such a showing, the Court may not grant
`Amazon’s motion, as Amazon has not shown a sufficiently direct interest in the outcome of
`litigation to justify the Court permitting intervention. (Cont’l Vinyl, supra, 27 Cal.App.3d at p.
`550.)
`
`With such a clear indication from the Court as to what might justify granting intervention,
`Amazon still does not produce evidence of an interest which is sufficient in itself to justify
`Minute Order
`Page 6 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 717-11 Filed 01/07/22 Page 8 of 10
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`Civil Division
`Northwest District, Van Nuys Courthouse East, Department U
`
`21VECV00575
`EUROPLAY CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. vs PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY
`
`November 17, 2021
`8:30 AM
`
`Judge: Honorable Bernie C. LaForteza
`Judicial Assistant: Christine Gyimesi
`Courtroom Assistant: L. Vince-Cruz
`
`CSR: None
`ERM: None
`Deputy Sheriff: None
`
`intervention. Instead, Amazon explains with greater detail why it only has its present type of
`interest in the sought-after litigation, i.e., an interest as an ordinary judgment creditor with
`respect to defendant, and why the debt is still unpaid. (Amazon’s Supplemental Brief in Support
`of Motion for Intervention (Supp. Brief), p. 3, ¶ 1.)
`
`But these are not facts that are relevant to what is at issue, and they are not grounds for the Court
`to act against its discretion, which is, as explained several times now, circumscribed with respect
`to granting intervention for a nonparty creditor. Perhaps if the Court determined it had broader
`discretion to grant such requests by creditors, the Court might be inclined to do so. However, the
`facts in this case being as they are, the Court is relatively constrained insofar as it may justify
`such orders in this instance.
`
`Finally, regarding the Cont’l Vinyl exception providing that an otherwise merely consequential
`interest insufficient to grant intervention might become a direct interest there justifying upon the
`Court’s finding of: (a) bad faith of a party to the litigation; (b) the assertion by all parties to the
`litigation of claims adverse to the party seeking to intervene; (c) collusion, impossibility of
`asserting a position that should be presented in the litigation; or (d) similar circumstances render
`strict definition of direct interest likely to result in injustice (Cont’l Vinyl, supra, 27 Cal.App.3d
`at p. 551).
`
`Amazon requests that the Court enter order granting intervention on these grounds. But Amazon
`does not even take the time in its motion to state or show how it qualifies for this exception
`under the grounds stated given the facts of this case. For example, the grounds include factors
`related to allegations of collusion, injustice, and other bad acts by a malfeasant party which tends
`to show that without intervention some injustice will occur in the case. But besides merely
`alleging the fact that injustice will occur, plaintiff states no facts showing what the alleged
`injustice might look like, how, why, or that it is likely to occur, or how it has a causal or at least
`proportional relationship to the alleged collusion in this case.
`
`But none of the examples laid out by Cont’l Vinyl include facts that are very similar to this case,
`as this case presents the circumstance of a judgment creditor seeking intervention, and the law
`already provides a framework for the Court to address these precise issues, which is derived from
`cases with facts more closely resembling the facts surrounding the instant motion. (See, e.g.,
`Muller, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d at p. 515; see also, e.g., Olson, supra, 269 Cal.App.2d at pp.
`643—644; see also, e.g., Kerr, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 134.) This framework, as shown by
`Minute Order
`Page 7 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 717-11 Filed 01/07/22 Page 9 of 10
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`Civil Division
`Northwest District, Van Nuys Courthouse East, Department U
`
`21VECV00575
`EUROPLAY CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. vs PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY
`
`November 17, 2021
`8:30 AM
`
`Judge: Honorable Bernie C. LaForteza
`Judicial Assistant: Christine Gyimesi
`Courtroom Assistant: L. Vince-Cruz
`
`CSR: None
`ERM: None
`Deputy Sheriff: None
`
`the foregoing, seems to indicate fairly clearly that the Court should not grant Amazon’s motion.
`
`Insofar as the Cont’l Vinyl exception is concerned, Amazon has not persuaded the Court that it
`applies in this case. This might be partly because Amazon has not pointed out a single case in
`either of its briefs showing intervention by a nonparty creditor being allowed intervention on
`Cont’l Vinyl alone, with no interest in the present action to otherwise only interested in the
`property and transaction of the case by nature of being a creditor
`
`Thus, to whatever extent the Court does have discretion to grant the motion under Code of Civil
`Procedure section 387 subdivision (d)(2), it chooses, in this case, to exercise its it in order to
`deny Amazon’s motion to intervene, upon finding that Amazon does not have a direct and
`immediate interest in the litigation justifying intervention. (Paul W., supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p.
`57 [“Whether in a particular case intervention should be allowed is best determined by a
`consideration of the facts of that case, and the decision is ordinarily left to the sound discretion of
`the trial court.”].)
`
`Thus, Amazon’s motion is denied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The motion for leave to intervene in this action by nonparties Amazon.Com, Inc., Amazon Web
`Services, Inc., and Twitch Interactive, Inc. is DENIED.
`
`[1] The remainder of this order has been updated from the tentative ruling parties received in
`advance of the hearing November 5, 2021, but the analysis and conclusion remain unchanged,
`i.e., Amazon is not sufficiently interested in the property or transaction of this litigation to justify
`the Court granting intervention.
`
`[2] This Part III, subpart (a) of the Court’s order is largely unaltered from how it appeared in the
`Court’s tentative ruling, which was made available to the parties in advance of the hearing on
`November 5, 2021. The Court having now reviewed Amazon’s subsequently filed supplemental
`brief in supporting of intervention, its further findings are addressed, infra, at Part III, subpart (b)
`of this order.
`
`[3] On July 27, 2021, Amazon obtained final, amended judgment from the United States District
`Minute Order
`Page 8 of 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 717-11 Filed 01/07/22 Page 10 of 10
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`Civil Division
`Northwest District, Van Nuys Courthouse East, Department U
`
`21VECV00575
`EUROPLAY CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, A DELAWARE
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. vs PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY
`COMPANY
`
`November 17, 2021
`8:30 AM
`
`Judge: Honorable Bernie C. LaForteza
`Judicial Assistant: Christine Gyimesi
`Courtroom Assistant: L. Vince-Cruz
`
`CSR: None
`ERM: None
`Deputy Sheriff: None
`
`Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, providing, “judgment is hereby
`entered in favor of, Amazon and against PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, in the amount of
`$5,403,122.68.” (Gregorian Dec., Exhibit F, p. 3 ¶ 2.)
`
`Baratz is ordered to give notice of ruling.
`
`Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Stipulated Judgment is scheduled for 12/08/2021 at 08:30 AM
`in Department U at Van Nuys Courthouse East.
`
`Case Management Conference is scheduled for 12/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department U at Van
`Nuys Courthouse East.
`
`Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the hearings scheduled for 12/08/2021.
`
`Minute Order
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`