Freitag v. Peterson et al

1
21-CV-1620 TWR (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRISTA FREITAG, Court-appointed
permanent receiver for ANI Development,
LLC; American National Investments,
Inc.; and their subsidiaries and affiliates,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIM H. PETERSON, individually and as
Trustee of the Peterson Family Trust dated
April 14, 1992, and as Trustee of the
Peterson Family Trust dated
September 29, 1983; KIM FUNDING,
LLC, a California limited liability
company; ABC FUNDING
STRATEGIES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; ABC FUNDING
STRATEGIES MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; ANI
LICENSE FUND, LLC, a California
limited liability company; KIM MEDIA,
LLC, a California limited liability
company; KIM MANAGEMENT, INC., a
California corporation; KIM AVIATION,
LLC, a California limited liability
company; AERO DRIVE, LLC, a
California limited liability company;
Case No.: 21-CV-1620 TWR (AHG)
ORDER (1) GRANTING
RECEIVER’S EX PARTE MOTION
FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER;
AND (2) RESTRAINING
DEFENDANT KIM MEDIA, LLC
FROM ASSIGNING ANY RIGHTS
TO PAYMENT UNDER THE
BILLBOARD SUBLEASE
(ECF No. 110)
Case 3:21-cv-01620-TWR-AHG Document 111 Filed 03/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
21-CV-1620 TWR (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AERO DRIVE THREE, LLC, a California
limited liability company; BALTIMORE
DRIVE, LLC, a California limited liability
company; GEORGE PALMER
CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation;
KIM FUNDING LLC DEFINED
BENEFIT PENSION PLAN; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
Presently before the Court is the Ex Parte Motion for Restraining Order Against Kim
Media, LLC (Rents from Billboard Lease at 101 Jefferson Street, San Francisco,
California) (“Ex Parte Mot.,” ECF No. 110) filed by judgment creditor Krista Freitag (the
“Receiver”), 	the 	Court-appointed 	permanent 	receiver 	for 	ANI 	Development, 	LLC;
American National Investments, Inc.; and their subsidiaries and affiliates. On March 13,
2026, the Receiver filed a Motion for Assignment Order (Rents from Billboard Lease at
101 Jefferson Street, San Francisco, California) (“Assignment Mot.,” ECF No. 107),
through 	which 	she 	seeks, 	pursuant 	to 	California 	Code 	of 	Civil 	Procedure
§§ 708.510–708.560, an Order assigning to her all rights to payment due or to become due
to Defendant Kim Media, LLC relating to its leasehold interest in a portion of that certain
real property located at 101 Jefferson Street, San Francisco, California (the “Premises”),
including, without limitation, any right to payment of rents or other charges arising from a
sublease or similar agreement regarding the use of an electronic billboard on the Premises
(a “Billboard Sublease”). The Court set the Assignment Motion for a hearing on April 30,
2026, and set a briefing schedule. (See ECF No. 108.)
“Following the filing of the Motion for Assignment Order, the Receiver gave notice
thereof to Harkey Media Management, LLC (“Harkey Media”), the now-confirmed
sublessee under a Billboard Sublease with Kim Media.” 	(Ex Parte Mot. at 3.) 	“At a
March 25, 2026, meeting, Harkey Media informed the Receiver’s counsel that a couple of
days earlier, [Defendant] Kim Peterson (“Peterson”), Kim Media’s principal, [had] emailed
Harkey Media to inform it that the Billboard Sublease had previously been assigned to an
Case 3:21-cv-01620-TWR-AHG Document 111 Filed 03/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
21-CV-1620 TWR (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unidentified third party, but that he had not gotten around to providing Harkey Media with
the applicable paperwork.”1 (Id.) Through the instant Ex Parte Motion, the Receiver seeks
“a restraining order against Kim Media under California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 708.520[]” that “will prohibit Kim Media from manufacturing a purported assignment of
the Billboard Lease that is clearly intended to hinder the Receiver’s ability to collect on the
underlying judgment.”2 (Id.)
Having considered the Receiver’s Ex Parte Motion and supporting papers and
having determined that the relief requested on an ex parte basis is appropriate under the
circumstances, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court GRANTS Receiver’s Ex
Parte Motion. Accordingly, effective as of March 13, 2026, the date the Receiver filed her
pending Assignment Motion, Kim Media and its members, managers, agents, and
representatives, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for Kim Media, are
1 Mr. Peterson’s email reads:
Scott: You may get contacted by a law firm representing a Receiver in San Diego as to a 6
year litigation saga I am involved in. Shortly, the Receiver and their law firm will be sued
by me for a variety of issues. In any event, prior to December of 25, I assigned my Lease
with you at the Wharf to a Home Office in South Dakota. Due to my accident on X-Mas
day, I have not had the time to send you a package on the transaction, which will include
the transfer details and where you will be wiring money on April 1. 	Bottom line, Kim
Media, LLC no longer has the Lease. Nothing will change as to your rights. KIM
(ECF No. 110-1 (“Harkey Decl.”) ¶ 5 & Ex. 1.)
2 	Section 708.520 provides, in relevant part:
(a) 	When an application is made pursuant to Section 708.510 or thereafter, the
judgment creditor may apply to the court for an order restraining the judgment
debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought
to be assigned. The application shall be made on noticed motion if the court so
directs or a court rule so requires. Otherwise, it may be made ex parte.
(b) 	The court may issue an order pursuant to this section upon a showing of need for
the order. The court, in its discretion, may require the judgment creditor to provide
an undertaking.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 708.520(a)–(b).
Case 3:21-cv-01620-TWR-AHG Document 111 Filed 03/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
21-CV-1620 TWR (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROHIBITED from assigning or otherwise disposing of any and all rights to payment due
or to become due to Kim Media under the Billboard Sublease. 	Any assignment or
disposition of any such right to payment, or attempt to assign or dispose of any such right
to payment, including, without limitation, any assignment or attempted assignment of the
Billboard Sublease by Kim Media to a third party, on or after March 13, 2026, SHALL
BE NULL AND VOID. 	This provision SHALL REMAIN EFFECTIVE unless and
until entry of an Order modifying or vacating this Order upon appropriate motion by Kim
Media or otherwise. In accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.520(d),
upon personal service of this Order on Kim Media, this Order
SHALL SERVE as notice
to Kim Media that failure to comply with the terms of this Order may subject Kim Media
to being held in contempt of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2026
___________________________
Honorable Todd W. Robinson
United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cv-01620-TWR-AHG Document 111 Filed 03/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4