MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Before the Court are three Motions to Appoint Receiver filed by Plaintiff California Bank and Trust (the "Bank") on April 12, 2012, in case numbers 1:12-cv-00141-CWD, 1:12-cv-00142-CWD, and 1:12-cv-00143-CWD.*fn1 The Bank alleges that receivership is necessary because the loan it extended to Defendants is in default, and it seeks to protect its collateral from forfeiture. Further, the Bank seeks an injunction directing the Defendants to cooperate with the appointed receiver. The Bank requested an expedited hearing on its motion. The Court conducted a hearing on May 14, 2012, and thereafter took the matter under advisement. Based upon the briefs, pleadings, and evidentiary submissions, the Court concludes that the Bank's motion for appointment of a receiver should be granted, in part, for the reasons more fully discussed below.
California Bank and Trust (the "Bank") is the successor-in-interest to Vineyard Bank by assignment through the FDIC. On August 3, 2005, the Bank provided financing to Defendant Shilo Inn Nampa in the amount of $1,350,000; Shilo Inn Boise in the amount of $4,000,000.00; and Shilo Inn Twin Falls in the amount of $6,000,000.00, secured by the respective real properties. The Bank contends that Shilo Inn is in default under the promissory note, deed of trust, and other loan documents governing the loans at issue, which default occurred in early 2010 when Shilo Inn failed to submit monthly payments when due. The Bank worked with Shilo Inn, and modified the Loan Agreements. However, the Bank contends that Shilo Inn again defaulted and, pursuant to a second forbearance agreement and amendment to the deed of trust and the other loan documents, the parties executed an agreement expressly stipulating to the appointment of a receiver in the event of a third default. (Compl. Ex. K).
The receivership provision in the Second Forbearance Agreement executed on June 30, 2011, states:
8. Stipulation to Receivership. Borrower hereby consents and stipulates to the appointment of a receiver for each of the Properties and to otherwise use his best efforts, and to cause the Other Borrowers, to cooperate with Lender in connection with the appointment of a receiver for each of the Properties whether based on the Specified Defaults or any other Event of Default now or hereafter existing under the Loan Documents or the Other Loan Documents. (Compl. Ex. K, Dkt. 1-11.)*fn2 The Deed of Trust, executed on August 5, 2005, contains the following provision:
Appoint Receiver. Lender shall have the right to have a receiver appointed to take possession of all or any part of the Property, with the power to protect and preserve the Property, to operate the Property preceding foreclosure or sale, and to collect the Rents from the Property and apply the proceeds, over and above the cost of the receivership, against the Indebtedness. The receiver may serve without bond if permitted by law. Lender's right to the appointment of a receiver shall exist whether or not the apparent value of the Property exceeds the Indebtedness by a substantial amount. Employment by Lender shall not disqualify a person from serving as a receiver. (Compl. Ex. D, Dkt. 1-4.)
The Bank alleges Shilo Inn again went into default on October 1, 2011, and November 1, 2011, when it failed to make loan payments then due on its loans to the Bank. In addition to noncompliance with other obligations, the Bank alleges that Shilo Inn has failed to pay real property taxes for tax years 2010 and 2011, as well as personal property taxes for 2011, with respect to all three properties. The Bank alleges that, due to the failure to pay property taxes, the properties are in imminent danger of forfeiture. Therefore, the Bank seeks the appointment of a receiver, specifically Trigild, Inc., to arrange for cure of the defaults and to ensure that the loans remain secured by the respective Properties during the pendency of the foreclosure actions.
Although Defendants do not dispute they are in default, (Ans. ¶ 2 ), Defendants contend that the appointment of a receiver will do more harm than good, and that the circumstances do not warrant the appointment of a receiver. Defendants assert that a receiver is appointed only when fraudulent conduct has occurred or there is imminent danger to the property, both circumstances that Defendants deny. Further, Defendants argue that Shilo Inn's franchise and management agreements preclude the appointment of a receiver because the agreements predate the loan agreements, and the franchisor can revoke the franchise agreement once a receiver is appointed. If the Court is inclined to appoint a receiver, Defendant asserts that the appointment should be restricted to collecting rents, and not for full managerial rights.
The Bank responds that Defendants' reliance on the franchise agreement is insufficient, because Defendant Hemstreet owns both the franchisor and the management company running the hotels, and therefore has the authority to waive any purported default under the franchise agreement. The Bank contends that, due to the imminent danger of loss, diminution in value, and other factors, a receiver with managerial authority is appropriate.
Just prior to the hearing, Defendants filed a supplemental memorandum on May 11, 2012, indicating that Shilo Inn requested from the Bank full payoff amounts to reinstate the loans. During the hearing, Defendants represented that, upon receipt of the amounts in arrears, Shilo Inn would bring the loans current. Defendants requested time in which to do so. Further, Defendants notified the Court of parallel proceedings involving three Shilo Inn properties in Oregon. District Judge Marco Hernandez conducted a hearing May 11, 2012, on the Bank's motions to appoint a receiver and for injunction in the three cases before the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. (Cal. Bank & Trust v. Shilo Inn, Seaside East, LLC, et. al., Case Nos. 3:12-cv-506, 3:12-cv-508, and 3:12-cv-509.) Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in the District of Oregon. Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(1).
The three matters before the Court have been randomly assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge. Absent consent of the parties, a United States Magistrate Judge has the authority to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a district judge proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of motions for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, and for summary judgment.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If the parties consent to have proceedings conducted by a magistrate judge, that judge has the authority to conduct all proceedings in a civil matter, including the entry of judgment.
The Bank asks for both appointment of a receiver and for an injunction requiring cooperation with the receiver. Canada Life v. LaPeter, 563 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2009), indicates that appointment of a receiver is merely an ancillary procedural matter that does not affect the outcome of the case. See Sterling Sav. Bank v. Citadel Dev. Co., Inc., 656 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1258 (D.Or. 2009). In Sterling, the court concluded that ...