A
civil trial will be open at San
Diego Central Court
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.
San Diego Regenerative Medicine Institute (SDRMI), a
nonprofit independent biomedical research institute incorporated in California
with 501C3 IRS tax-exempt status, was founded in 2010 to continue its founder
Dr. Parsons’ human embryonic stem cell research. SDRMI’s human embryonic stem
cell lines include 12 clinical-grade high quality cell lines, which
SDRMI owns the commercial rights, and 15 research-grade cell lines. They provides
so far the only available high-quality human functional brain and heart cell
source for battling diseases like Parkinson’s
disease, ALS, Alzheimer disease, stroke, brain and spinal cord injuries, heart
disease and failure. These incurable hitherto
untreatable diseases incur exorbitant costs on the healthcare system,
therefore, there is a strong focus on providing newer and more efficient solutions
for these therapeutic needs. SDRMI human
stem cells provide life scientists and clinicians with novel and effective resources
to address major health concerns that millions of people are pinning their
hopes on.
In April 2011, SDRMI signed a one year lease agreement
with BMR at San Diego
Science Center CIRM grants (CIRM ICOC board meeting in
San Diego on January 17, 2012, see http://www.cirm.ca.gov/ and http://www.cirm.ca.gov/board-and-meetings/public-meetings,
and meeting transcript at http://www.cirm.ca.gov/sites/default/files/files/agenda/transcripts/ICOC-1-17-12%20Transcript.pdf
), which was quickly followed by BMR unlawful
detainer action filed in San Diego Central Court
SDRMI was shocked to see that a company claimed to be the world largest commercial real estate for life science industry has such low ethic and professional standards in doing business, such as BMR has denied that it has a duty of care for its tenants, put malicious provisions for exit survey, decontamination of hazardous materials, gave life science company no time or only 2 days to move upon termination of the lease without disclosure of the risks of those provisions to life science company against public policy and code of ethics, denied tenant’s request for changes of those malicious provisions in the lease, BMR malicious conducts of self-help eviction, changing locks, unplugging utility, breaking tenant’s freezer locks and taking valuable research materials and stem cells out of cryofreezer and freezer to destroy them, selling or donating life science company’s research equipment, all without obtaining consent from the tenant, which BMR has admitted during case discovery; SDRMI were beyond shocked that BMR claimed that it was legal for BMR so quickly and so carelessly destroy SDRMI valuable human embryonic stem cell lines, human stem cell therapy products, and stem cell research materials of over 8 years stem cell research with millions of tax dollars and donation by using an limited unlawful detainer of less than $25,000 (please see image files of BMR attorney letters provided by BMR themselves through case discovery below). SDRMI was shocked that BMR denied that they knew anything stored in the cryofreezer and freezer of life science company or institute were valuable, BMR denied that they knew that SDRMI’s human embryonic stem cells and preclinical cell therapy products were valuable, and BMR denied that they knew that, if they deliberately took any materials out of freezers and cryofreezer and left at room temperature, they would destroy those materials for good.
SDRMI was shocked to see that a company claimed to be the world largest commercial real estate for life science industry has such low ethic and professional standards in doing business, such as BMR has denied that it has a duty of care for its tenants, put malicious provisions for exit survey, decontamination of hazardous materials, gave life science company no time or only 2 days to move upon termination of the lease without disclosure of the risks of those provisions to life science company against public policy and code of ethics, denied tenant’s request for changes of those malicious provisions in the lease, BMR malicious conducts of self-help eviction, changing locks, unplugging utility, breaking tenant’s freezer locks and taking valuable research materials and stem cells out of cryofreezer and freezer to destroy them, selling or donating life science company’s research equipment, all without obtaining consent from the tenant, which BMR has admitted during case discovery; SDRMI were beyond shocked that BMR claimed that it was legal for BMR so quickly and so carelessly destroy SDRMI valuable human embryonic stem cell lines, human stem cell therapy products, and stem cell research materials of over 8 years stem cell research with millions of tax dollars and donation by using an limited unlawful detainer of less than $25,000 (please see image files of BMR attorney letters provided by BMR themselves through case discovery below). SDRMI was shocked that BMR denied that they knew anything stored in the cryofreezer and freezer of life science company or institute were valuable, BMR denied that they knew that SDRMI’s human embryonic stem cells and preclinical cell therapy products were valuable, and BMR denied that they knew that, if they deliberately took any materials out of freezers and cryofreezer and left at room temperature, they would destroy those materials for good.
BMR
believes that their legal defenses are impeccable, they have a lease with hidden
legal languages for their malicious intention for destruction of valuable life
science research materials of its tenants (such as put malicious provisions for exit survey, decontamination of
hazardous materials, give life science company no time or only 2 days to move
upon termination of the lease without disclosure of the risks of those
provisions to life science company against public policy and code of ethics, deny
tenant’s request for changes of those malicious provisions in the lease), they have abandonment notice, and they
have unlawful detainer (please see image files provided by BMR themselves through case
discovery below). Not only BMR claims 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,
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). Why would a commercial real estate company be interested in SDRMI’s
stem cell patent? How could BMR attorney Steve Blake edge his motions through the
court that could not possibly happen to any regular company according to California California
BMR provided the supporting documents below.
-----Original
Message-----
From:Steven W. Blake
[mailto:sblake@galuppolaw.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 12:38 PM
To:Xuejun H Parsons
Subject: Amount Owed for BMR UD Judgment
Importance: High
From:
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 12:38 PM
To:
Subject: Amount Owed for BMR UD Judgment
Importance: High
Dear
Mrs. Parsons,
I
reviewed our file and the amount necessary to satisfy the BMR unlawful detainer
judgment against SDRMI is $27,528.39, which is itemized as follows:
1.
Amount
of
Judgment:
$11,308.09
2.
10%
Interest (05/05/12 – 08/01/14)
Daily Interest $3.10 x 818
Days
$2,535.80
3.
Monetary
Sanction
$1,620.00
4.
BMR’s
Attorney’s Fees to Enforce Judgment $11,573.00
5.
BMR’s
Costs to Enforce
Judgment
$491.50
TOTAL
AMOUNT
OWED:
$27,528.39
BMR
is entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs in enforcing the judgment per
California Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 based on the underlying
judgment which included an award of attorney’s fees. (See attached
statute)
BMR
is willing to accept the $15,319.82 payment as partial satisfaction of
the UD judgment and SDRMI would still be responsible for the remaining
$12,208.57. But, before doing so, please confirm that is what SDRMI would
like to do. In the meantime, I will hold SDRMI’s check, until I hear from
you.
Additionally,
in all of its statements over the last several weeks/months/years SDRMI has
claimed it has $0, no accounts receivable and no expectation of receiving any
funds. Therefore, I can only assume that someone loaned SDRMI the money
that you gave me the other day. Does SDRMI have any type of corporate
resolution, Board approval or other authorization for borrowing this money and
using it to pay BMR? Could you please forward that information to
me. BMR is concerned that it could be sued for fraudulent conveyance by
the lender or whomever the money was loaned by, since a Nonprofit typically
cannot make loans or distribute funds without Board approval.
Please
let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to receiving that
information.
Steve
Real Estate and Business Attorney
Galuppo & Blake
A Professional Law Corporation
Direct: 760.431-4575
Fax:
760.431.4579
-----Original
Message-----
From:Steven W. Blake
[mailto:sblake@galuppolaw.com]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 11:30 AM
To: Xuejun H Parsons
Subject: SDRMI Turnover of Patent to BMR
From:
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 11:30 AM
To: Xuejun H Parsons
Subject: SDRMI Turnover of Patent to BMR
Dear
Dr. Parsons,
I
write to request SDRMI’s voluntary compliance to turnover and assign its patent
to BMR-Bunker Hill LP within the next 7 days. BMR, as judgment
creditor, is entitled to turnover of the patent to help satisfy the judgment it
holds against SDRMI. (See Code of Civil Procedure §708.510, et seq.)
In
the event that SDRMI refuses to voluntarily assign the patent to BMR, I have
been instructed to go into Court ex parte and ask the court for an order
requiring turnover of the patent to BMR based on BMR’s attached Writ of
Execution.
I
look forward to receiving the assignment documents a.s.a.p.
Thanks.
Steve
Real Estate and Business Attorney
Galuppo & Blake
A Professional Law Corporation
Direct: 760.431-4575
Fax:
760.431.4579
-----Original
Message-----
From:Steven W. Blake
[mailto:sblake@galuppolaw.com]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 11:23 AM
To: Xuejun H Parsons
Subject: BMR v. SDRMI - UD case
From:
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 11:23 AM
To: Xuejun H Parsons
Subject: BMR v. SDRMI - UD case
Dear
Dr. Parsons,
You
were not present yesterday at the hearing in the UD case regarding SDRMI’s
compliance with post-judgment discovery. Given SDRMI’s non-compliance
with the Court’s previous order, Judge Eddie Sturgeon specially set a hearing
for the appointment of a receiver to take control of SDRMI. The hearing
is set August 13, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. in department C-07 of the San Diego
Superior Court. I mail served copies of the moving papers to your home
yesterday.
Given
the financial situation of SDRMI and the lack of any corporate formalities, it
is likely that a receiver will liquidate SDRMI’s assets, if any, and dissolve
the company or put it in bankruptcy.
Please
let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Steve
Real Estate and Business Attorney
Galuppo & Blake
A Professional Law Corporation
Direct: 760.431-4575
Fax:
760.431.4579
-----Original
Message-----
From:Steven W. Blake
[mailto:sblake@galuppolaw.com]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 11:30 AM
To: Xuejun H Parsons
Subject: SDRMI Turnover of Patent to BMR
From:
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 11:30 AM
To: Xuejun H Parsons
Subject: SDRMI Turnover of Patent to BMR
Dear
Dr. Parsons,
I
write to request SDRMI’s voluntary compliance to turnover and assign its patent
to BMR-Bunker Hill LP within the next 7 days. BMR, as judgment
creditor, is entitled to turnover of the patent to help satisfy the judgment it
holds against SDRMI. (See Code of Civil Procedure §708.510, et seq.)
In
the event that SDRMI refuses to voluntarily assign the patent to BMR, I have been
instructed to go into Court ex parte and ask the court for an order requiring
turnover of the patent to BMR based on BMR’s attached Writ of Execution.
I
look forward to receiving the assignment documents a.s.a.p.
Thanks.
Steve
Real Estate and Business Attorney
Galuppo & Blake
A Professional Law Corporation
Direct: 760.431-4575
Fax:
760.431.4579
-----Original
Message-----
From:Steven W. Blake
[mailto:sblake@galuppolaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:42 PM
To: parsons@sdrmi.org
Subject: BMR v. SDRMI - UD Case - SEIZURE ORDER
Importance: High
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:42 PM
To: parsons@sdrmi.org
Subject: BMR v. SDRMI - UD Case - SEIZURE ORDER
Importance: High
Dear
Dr. Parsons,
Yesterday,
Judge Whitney granted BMR-Bunker Hill LP’s ex parte application directing the
Sheriff to seize SDRMI personal property located at your residence at 4539 Donald Avenue , San Diego , CA 92117
I
attached a copy of the Order, I will forward the signed copy once I get it back
from the Court.
Please
understand that the Sheriff will contact us and you as to when he/she will come
to your property to seize the property. At that time, we will have movers
present that will move the property out of your house. Therefore, it
would be prudent for you to move the property into your garage or some other
easily accessible location so that the process will be as minimally intrusive
as possible. If you do not the Sheriff is authorized to use all
reasonable means to enter your home and access the property.
In
the event SDRMI fails to make the property available to the Sheriff, I will go
back into court and seek further relief against SDRMI, including but not
limited to sanctions or contempt.
Please
let me know if you have any questions.
Steve
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment