All the information disclosed below is privileged and provided by BMR, SDRMI,
and other sources through case discovery. This
blog makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, correctness,
reliability, suitability, or validity of this information.
BioMed
Realty Trust Inc (BMR) -- Biomed Realty Trust Inc, Biomed Realty LP, BMR-Bunker
Hill LP -- is the largest public-traded commercial real estate
specializing leasing laboratory spaces for life science industry. BMR has failed to disclose its legal proceedings to the United States
Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Public in consecutive quarterly
reports against SEC regulations and Public Policy (please see http://www.sec.gov/). BMR’s board members include
trustees and president of Salk Institute; trustee of Stanford University; CEO of Amylin Pharmaceuticals; boards of directors of Illumina, Geron
Corporation, Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp, Corcept Therapeutics, and Castle
Biosciences; the advisory councils of the University of California San Diego
and the University of Miami; President of Roth Capital (please see http://www.biomed.com
). Its
biotechnology company investment portfolio includes some of the trailblazers in
human embryonic stem cell lines, such as Geron and Asterias Biotherapeutics, a
subsidiary of Biotime, which dosed on stem cell assets of Geron in October 2013
under a $40 million deal for acquiring four cell lines, including OPC1, that
were shelved by Geron. Asterias entered an 8-year lease contract with BMR in
January 2014, and subsequently, received a $14.3 million award from California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM )
in May 2014 to continue clinical trial of OPC1 for spinal cord injury abandoned
by Geron in November 2011.
In
a surprise move from BMR for its bizarre unlawful
detainer case (case#37-2012-00042147, and court records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov,
please also see below image files of SD court records timeline), BMR attorney requested court
appoint receiver to take control of San Diego Regenerative Medicine Institute (SDRMI)
before the trial was open (case#37-2013-00038680 and
court records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov).
BMR, a public traded company advertising
itself as leading force in leasing laboratory spaces to life science industry, has
been waging a legal war of money
and power on SDRMI, a non-profit 501c3 tax-exempt stem cell research start-up
in life science industry that, BMR has known from the beginning, did not have
any legal counsel and would not be able to afford any legal counsel (case#37-2012-00042147, and court records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov,
please also see below image files of SD court records timeline). BMR
has admitted through case discovery that they have confiscated and destroyed
SDRMI valuable human embryonic stem cell (human ES cell) lines and stem cell
research materials, and sold or donated SDRMI stem cell research equipment to
its partner organizations for sell using a one year lease agreement (please see image files provided by BMR themselves through
case discovery below). However, not only BMR claims that they are not legally
responsible for any of their deliberate damages to SDRMI because of the one
year lease SDRMI signed into, BMR attorney Steve Blake of Galuppo & Blake has also been very
aggressive in pursuing the $11,308.09 money judgment that BMR obtained after
their lock out by continuing to go to court to bring legal actions and
sanctions to SDRMI in the last 2 years (case#37-2012-00042147, and court records can be
viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov,
please also see below image files of SD court records timeline). BMR attorney never mentioned
to court that there was illegal lock-out, there was illegal destruction of
SDRMI human ES cells and research materials, there was illegal selling of SDRMI
stem cell research equipment, and BMR refused to return SDRMI stem cell
research equipment worth more than the money judgment (please
see image files of BMR attorney communication through case discovery below).
In January 2014, BMR entered an 8-year lease contract with Asterias, in the
same time, BMR filed a cross-complaint in court to SDRMI founder Dr. Parsons,
even though only SDRMI, not Dr. Parsons, ever signed a one year lease with BMR,
and California CIRM gave Asterias $14.3 million award, afterwards,
BMR attorney Steve Blake filed multiple motions in court for court sanction,
writ of execution, court-appointed receiver with malicious intention and
primarily for improper purposes, such as harassment or intentionally cause needless
increase in the cost of litigation, to force SDRMI handover its stem cell
patent, hostile takeover, force SDRMI liquidate its asset into bankruptcy, compel
SDRMI production of information and documents that contain information that is
commercially sensitive, trade secret, proprietary, confidential and/or subject
to a right of privacy entitled by law (please see
BMR attorney’s frequent ex parte contacts with SDRMI below and image files of
SD court records timeline).
Not
withstanding BMR attorney’s legal harassment, SDRMI paid BMR in the amount of
$15,319.82 in a Cashier’s Check on July 30, 2014, to satisfy the money judgment that
contains multiple legal deficiencies in full, including: BMR money judgment in the amount of $11,308.09 entered on
form UD110 by BMR on 5/7/12; Accrued interest for BMR money judgment in the
amount of $2,391.73 entered on form MC-012 by BMR on 7/2/14; and BMR monetary
sanction against SDRMI in the amount of $1,620 awarded by Judge Kreep in court
on 6/11/14 (case#37-2012-00042147, and court records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov,
please also see below image files of SD court records timeline). However, BMR refused to
accept the Cashier’s Check and file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of
judgment with the court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP
section 724.050), but instead requested afterwards outrageous attorney fees that
is more than the money judgment and continued to procure court-appoint receiver
wrongfully, maliciously, and without sufficient cause (please
see BMR attorney’s frequent ex parte contacts with SDRMI below and image files
of SD court records timeline). In witness whereof, the above payment of
total of $15,319.82 was received and honored by BMR on September 12, 2014 in San Diego
Pursuant
to Enforcement of Judgments Law, a Cashier’s Check has been honored, the time
of payment and the time of Judgment satisfaction in full relate back to the
date of the Cashier’s check, July 30, 2014. Although California Code of Civil
Procedures (CCP § 685.080 and 685.070) indicate
that post-judgment enforcement fees and costs could not be recovered after
judgment satisfaction, and CCP § 695.210
indicates that attorney fees claimed by BMR, but not awarded by the
court are not part of the judgment, Judge Gary Kreep at Department 7 of San
Diego Central Court awarded BMR $6,000 attorney fee right after he declared himself
that no court would award BMR attorney fee. Although California Code of Civil
Procedure (CCP) § 566 indicates that no
party, or attorney of a party, or person interested in an action, or related to
any judge of the court by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree,
can be appointed receiver therein without the written consent of the parties,
BMR acted quickly to singlehandedly name California Realtor Kevin Singer as court-appointed receiver for the
outrageous attorney fee awarded by Judge Kreep after judgment satisfaction (please
see BMR attorney photo and letters below). Kevin Singer is both a California
In April 2011, SDRMI
signed a one year lease agreement with BMR at San Diego Science
Center CIRM ), which
gave Asterias $14.3 million award in May 2014 after Asterias entered into an 8-year
lease contract with BMR that is worth ~ $1.5 million/year. BMR’s bizarre unlawful
detainer case (case#37-2012-00042147, and court
records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov, please also see below
image files of SD court records timeline) is
a clear example that the law has been used and abused for their improper
purposes.
BMR provided the supporting
documents below.
From: Steven W. Blake
[mailto:sblake@galuppolaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 10:40 AM
To: 'Xuejun H Parsons'
Subject: BMR v. SDRMI - Order on Receiver
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 10:40 AM
To: 'Xuejun H Parsons'
Subject: BMR v. SDRMI - Order on Receiver
Dear Jun,
Per Judge Gary
Kreep’s order on September 10, 2014, attached is a copy of the proposed order
for a receiver. SDRMI has ten (10) days to provide any comments to this
proposed order. If I do not hear from you by the end of the day on
September 30, 2014, I will submit the attached order to Judge Kreep.
Thank you.
Steve
Steven
W. Blake, Esq.
Real
Estate and Business Attorney
Galuppo
& Blake
A
Professional Law Corporation
Direct:
760.431-4575
Fax:
760.431.4579
Committed to Excellence, Committed
to you.
