ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF BANKRUPTCY COURT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT 665 33RD STREET LLC

BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, District Judge.

On July 1, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., in the above captioned adversary proceeding (the "Adversary Proceeding") pending before United States Bankruptcy Judge Barry Russell (the "Bankruptcy Court"), the Bankruptcy Court heard and considered the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant 665 33rd Street LLC (the "Motion") (Bankr. Ct. docket no. 57), filed by plaintiff Brad D. Krasnoff, the Chapter 7 trustee ("Plaintiff" or the "Trustee") for the bankruptcy estate of William Robert Norrie (the "Debtor"), against defendant 665 33rd Street LLC (the "Company"). The Bankruptcy Court also considered the opposition of William Robert Norrie (the "Debtor") to the Motion (Bankr. Ct. docket no. 61), Marilyn Norrie's opposition to the Motion (Bankr. Ct. docket no. 62), and the Trustee's Reply in support of the Motion (Bankr. Ct. docket no. 64), and the Ex Parte Application of John Norrie as trustee of "The 561 Brooks Avenue Trust Dated March 14, 2007" for Continuance of the Hearing on the Motion (Bankr. Ct. docket no. 66). Eric P. Israel of Danning, Gill, Diamond & Kollitz, LLP, appeared on behalf of the Trustee. Elizabeth A. LaRocque of Goe & Forsythe LLP, appeared on behalf of the Debtor and the Company. Alan Broidy appeared on behalf of Marilyn Norrie, individually and as the guardian of her minor children, the purported beneficiaries of The 561 Brooks Avenue Trust. Michael D. Kwasigroch appeared on behalf of John Norrie as the purported trustee of The 561 Brooks Avenue Trust Paul Burns appeared on behalf of creditors Kelly T. Mallen and John M. Pulos. 665 33rd Street LLC (the "Company") is in default and did not respond to the Motion.

The Bankruptcy Court having considered all of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the papers on file in the Adversary Proceeding and in the Debtor's Bankruptcy Case, the Bankruptcy Court having taken judicial notice of various facts, having considered the representations and arguments of counsel at the hearing on the Motion, and good cause appearing therefor, the Bankruptcy by order entered on August 5, 2014 (adv. docket no. 79) made recommendations that the District Court enter Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the "Proposed Findings") in support of a default judgment (adv. docket no. 80) in connection with the Motion in support of a final judgment in the Adversary Proceeding against the Company.

This matter was then referred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and assigned to the Honorable Beverly Reid O'Connell, United States District Judge, as case no. CV 14-06211 BRO. The Court having reviewed the Motion and the record de novo including the Proposed Findings, having adopted the Proposed Findings by its minute order entered on September 2, 2014 (District Court docket no. 5), it is

ORDERED THAT:

1. The Court adopts in its entirety the Proposed Findings as its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by this reference.

2. The Court makes the following further Conclusions of Law in support of the requested default judgment against Defendant 665 33rd Street, LLC (the "Company") on the Trustee's First Claim for Relief in the underlying complaint.

a. Per Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2620 (20111) and In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, 702 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(1)), aff'd, In Executive Benefits Insurance Agency, Case No. 12-1200 (June 9, 2014), this matter is properly before the District Court for de novo review.

b. A final, default judgment should be entered herein in favor of the Trustee and against the Company (the "Judgment").

c. Entry of the Judgment as a final judgment on the Adversary Proceeding against the Company is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) because it is an ultimate disposition of the Trustee's claims against the Company in the Adversary Proceeding, it will resolve all issues with respect to the Property, and there is no just reason for delay.

d. If any of the foregoing Conclusions of Law is more properly characterized as a Finding of Fact, then any such Conclusion of Law is, to such extent, hereby re-characterized as a Finding of Fact.

IT IS SO ORDERED.