September 24, 2016
Law & Motion Department Tentative Rulings
  • Law and Motion Department Tentative Ruling Line:  (650) 261-5019
  • Other Judges' tentatives: please reference the appropriate Case Number and Case Caption below and contact the appropriate department.

Telephonic Appearances (CourtCall): If an appearance is required or if a party has provided timely notice of intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. to the court and all parties, any party may appear telephonically through CourtCall. To do so, you must contact CourtCall at (888) 882-6878 no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day prior to the hearing. Notifying CourtCall with your intent to appear is not an alternative to notifying the court. Please visit their website for more information. Please also see California Rule of Court No. 3.670.

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: Honorable jonathan e. karesh

Department 20

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 8C

 

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

 

NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL

 

Until further order of the Court, no endorsed-filed “courtesy copy” of pleadings is required to be provided to the Law and Motion Department.

 

 

IF YOU INTEND TO APPEAR ON ANY CASE ON THIS CALENDAR YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING:

 

1. YOU MUST CALL (650) 261-5019 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. TO INFORM THE COURT OF YOUR INTENT TO APPEAR.

2. You must give notice before 4:00 P.M. to all parties of your intent to appear pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1308(a)(1).

 

Failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral presentation.

 

Notifying CourtCall with your intent to appear is not an alternative to notifying the court.

 

All Counsel are reminded to comply with California Rule of Court 3.1110.  The Court will expect all exhibits to be tabbed accordingly. 

 

    Case                  Title / Nature of Case

 

9:00

Lines: 1 – 14 

CIV507680     STEVEN EDELMAN, ET AL. VS. NICHOLSON-LAMB VENTURE lp, et al.

 

 

EDELMAN, STEVEN                        G. SCOTT EMBLIDGE

NICHOLSON-LAMB VENTURE LP              KRISTOFER W. BIORN

 

 

1. MOTION TO MODIFY SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: BRUCE, KATHLEEN, MARTHA, GEORGE AND JOHN NICHOLSON FAMILY TRUSTS.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant John Nicholson’s Motion for Order Modifying Subpoenas and for Protective Order re: The Bruce Nicholson Trust, The Kathleen Hull Nicholson Trust, The Martha Nicholson Trust and the George Nicholson Trust is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED insofar as the subpoenas shall be limited to only those documents pertaining to John Nicholson or his Trust, or assets owned by John Nicholson or his Trust. The timeframe for production shall be from June 23, 2008 to the present.  

 

See line 4 for the related motion.

 

2. MOTION TO MODIFY SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: NICHOLSON FT LLC AND NICHOLSON FAMILY PATNERSHIP.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Nicholson FT, LLC and the Nicholson Family Partnership’s Motion for Order Modifying Subpoenas and for Protective Order is GRANTED.  The motion is GRANTED insofar as the subpoenas to these two family entities shall be limited to only those documents pertaining to John Nicholson or his Trust, or assets owned by John Nicholson or his Trust.  The timeframe for production shall be from June 23, 2008 to the present. 

 

3.MOTION TO MODIFY SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: BRUCE NICHOLSON, KATHLEEN NICHOLSON BULL, MARTHA NICHOLSON.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant John Nicholson’s Motion for Order Modifying Subpoenas and for Protective Order re: Bruce Nicholson, Kathleen Hull Nicholson and Martha Nicholson is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED insofar as the subpoenas shall be limited to only those documents pertaining to John Nicholson or his Trust, or assets owned by John Nicholson or his Trust. The timeframe for production shall be from June 23, 2008 to the present. The request for a protective order prohibiting Plaintiffs from contacting Bruce, Kathleen and Martha Nicholson is DENIED.

 

 

 

 

4.PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR BRUCE, KATHLEEN, MARTHA, GEORGE AND JOHN NICHOLSON TRUSTS.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel The Bruce Nicholson Trust’s, The Martha Nicholson Shepard Trust’s, The George Nicholson Trust’s, and The Kathy Hull Nicholson Trust’s Production of Documents in Furtherance of Order of Examination is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED insofar as the Trusts shall be compelled to produce only those documents pertaining to John Nicholson or his Trust, or assets owned by John Nicholson or his Trust. The timeframe for production shall be from June 23, 2008 to the present

 

 

5.MOTION TO MODIFY SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: RAETEX INDUSTRIES, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Defendant John Nicholson’s Motion to Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order Re: Raetex Industries, LLC is DENIED. No subpoena has been served on the company.

 

 

6.MOTION TO COMPEL THE JOHN NICHOLSON TRUST’S PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs STEVEN EDELMAN; LEONARD LEHMANN and STUART L. KLEIN’s Motion to Compel the John Nicholson Trust’s Production of Documents in Furtherance of Order of Examination is GRANTED. 

 

The John Nicholson Trust is ordered to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to the business records subpoena served upon it, as modified and narrowed by Plaintiffs on July 15, 2016 in meet and confer negotiations, which document categories are set forth as Items 1-14 in Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion.

 

 

7.MOTION TO COMPEL NICHOLSON FT LLC’S PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN FURTHERANCE OF ORDER OF EXAMINATION.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Nicholson FT, LLC’s Production of Documents is DENIED.  Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Defendant JOHN NICHOLSON; thus any discovery regarding Mr. Nicholson’s siblings, their respective Trusts, or Nicholson FT, LLC, is outside the scope of discovery on an Order of Examination.

 

 

8.MOTION TO COMPEL THE NICHOLSON FAMILY PARTNERSHIP’S PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN FURTHANCE OF ORDER OF EXAMINATION.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Nicholson Family Partnership’s Production of Documents is DENIED.  Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Defendant JOHN NICHOLSON; thus any discovery regarding Mr. Nicholson’s siblings, their respective Trusts, or the Nicholson Family Partnership is outside the scope of discovery on an Order of Examination.

 

 

9.MOTION TO COMPEL GHASI & CO’S PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN FURTHANCE OF ORDER OF EXAMINATION.

TENTATIVE RULING: 

 

The motion is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

 

Ghiasi & Company shall comply with the subpoena, producing all responsive documents described in the subpoena, but only as they pertain to John Nicholson and the John Nicholson Trust.

 

Ghiasi & Company shall not produce documents from files maintained for any person or entity other than John Nicholson and John Nicholson Trust. 

 

The timeframe for the production is June 23, 2008 to the present.

 

See line 15 for related motion.

 

 

10.MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF KATHLEEN NICHOLSON HULL IN FURTHANCE OF ORDER OF EXAMINATION.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion to compel Kathleen Nicholson Hull’s compliance with subpoena is granted in part, and denied in part as follows:

 

Kathleen Nicholson Hull shall produce all responsive documents as they pertain to John Nicholson, the John Nicholson Trust, and Bruce Nicholson as trustee of the John Nicholson Trust. Timeframe for production is June 23, 2008, to the present.  Responsive documents to be produced are those “evidencing,” not “sufficient to evidence.” Nicholson Hull’s additional restrictions “unsatisfied” judgments and “currently outstanding” loans are is improperly narrow and are stricken.

 

No documents are compelled for production as to the Nicholson Family Partnership, Nicholson FT LLC, or as to Kathleen Nicholson Hull as trustee of any of the sibling trusts.

 

 

11.MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF BRUCE NICHOLSON IN FURTHANCE OF ORDER OF EXAMINATION.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The motion to compel Bruce Nicholson’s compliance with subpoena is granted in part, and denied in part as follows:

 

Bruce Nicholson shall produce all responsive documents as they pertain to John Nicholson, the John Nicholson Trust, and Bruce Nicholson as trustee of the John Nicholson Trust. Timeframe for production is June 23, 2008, to the present.

 

No documents are compelled for production as to the Nicholson Family Partnership, Nicholson FT LLC, or as to Bruce Nicholson as trustee of any of the sibling trusts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12.MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF RIVER CITY BANK IN FURTHANCE OF ORDER OF EXAMINATION.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel River City Bank’s (RCB) production of documents in furtherance of order of examination is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.  The motion is GRANTED with respect to documents that relate primarily to (1) John Nicholson, including his personal assets and/or income, and/or (2) the John Nicholson Trust.  This includes documents relating to tax returns of John Nicholson and the John Nicholson Trust, but not the tax returns of any other entity.  It also includes documents containing representations to RCB made by John Nicholson or his Trust about John Nicholson’s or the John Nicholson Trust’s assets or income, or John Nicholson’s or his Trust’s ability to guarantee or repay any bank loan.  The motion is DENIED with respect to documents that relate primarily to John Nicholson’s siblings, the siblings’ Trusts, the Nicholson Family Partnership (NFP), or the Nicholson FT, LLC.

 

The timeframe for the production is June 23, 2008 to the present.

 

See line 15 for related motion.

 

 

13.MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF WELLS FARGO BANK IN FURTHANCE OF ORDER OF EXAMINATION.

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Wells Fargo Bank’s production of documents in furtherance of order of examination is (a) GRANTED with respect to Category of Documents Nos. 1-3 on grounds Wells Fargo has not objected to the requests, and the third parties have withdrawn their objections, and (b) GRANTED with respect to Category of Documents No. 4. 

 

The Nicholson non-parties, but not Wells Fargo, have objected to the requests, primarily on privacy and privilege grounds.  The objection is based on the fact the request seeks documents pertaining to the John Nicholson Trust (“John Trust”).  The parties do not appear to dispute that John Nicholson is the John Trust’s sole beneficiary, and it is his primary source of income.  The narrowed subpoena, in light of the issued Judgment, appears targeted and reasonable, and necessary for the debtor’s examination.  To the extent the Court must balance Plaintiffs’ need for the documents pertaining to the John Trust with “third party” privacy rights, the Court finds the equities favor compelling production of the documents. 

 

The Nicholson non-parties argue that John Nicholson’s only interest in the John Trust is income distributions from it, and that the non-parties already agreed to produce documents showing its distributions.  But the non-parties extending that offer are adversarial to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs should be entitled to discover objective information regarding the John Trust’s assets and distributions, and the extent to which John Nicholson controls them, rather than receive selected documents chosen by adversaries in a case involving fraud.  Nor is it clear, as the non-parties contend, that Plaintiffs are necessarily limited to the John Trust’s income distributions.  It also is not a compelling argument that the Judgment is not against the John Trust.  The Court is simply ordering the production of documents so that Plaintiffs can gather relevant information; it is not adjudicating the John Trust’s liability. 

 

Further, the Court orders the produced documents shall be subject to a protective order, addressed below, which should address the stated privacy concerns.  John Nicholson has already produced his personal tax returns and has thus waived any objection as to them.  As for the John Trust’s tax returns, the equities favor compelling their production. 

 

 

14.MOTION TO MODIFY SUBPOENA/PROTECTIVE ORDER (RIVER CITY BANK)

TENTATIVE RULING: 

 

The motion is DENIED with respect to documents that relate primarily to 1) John Nicholson, including his personal assets and/or income, and/or 2) the John Nicholson Trust. This includes documents relating to the tax returns of John Nicholson and the John Nicholson Trust but not the tax returns of any other entity. It also includes any documents containing representations made to River City Bank by John Nicholson or his Trust about John Nicholson individually or his Trusts’s ability to guarantee or repay any loan made by River City Bank.

 

The motion is GRANTED with respect to those documents that relate primarily to the siblings of John Nicholson, the trusts of the siblings of John Nicholson, The Nicholson Family Partnership or the Nicholson FT, LLC.

 

15.MOTION TO MODIFY SUBPOENA/PROTECTIVE ORDER (GHASI AND COMPANY)

 

Defendant John Nicholson’s Motion to Modify the Subpoena issued to River City Bank and/or For a Protective Order is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

 

The motion is DENIED with respect to documents that relate primarily to 1) John Nicholson, including his personal assets and/or income, and/or 2) the John Nicholson Trust. This includes documents relating to the tax returns of John Nicholson and the John Nicholson Trust but not the tax returns of any other entity or individual.

 

The timeframe for the production is June 23, 2008 to the present.

 

The motion is GRANTED with respect to those documents that relate primarily to the siblings of John Nicholson, the trusts of the siblings of John Nicholson, The Nicholson Family Partnership or the Nicholson FT, LLC.

 

WITH REGARD TO ALL MOTIONS:

 

The documents are to be produced within thirty days of service of the notice of entry of order.

 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith and agree, within 10 days of service of the entry of order, on the language of the protective order that shall govern all produced documents pertaining to the pending motions.  If the parties cannot agree on the language, which should be simple and non-controversial, no party shall seek Court intervention without a declaration demonstrating a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute and a substantial justification for not agreeing to the proposed language, in the absence of which the Court will consider sanctions. 

 

In no way shall the Court’s Orders on any of the pending motions be construed to limit the scope of questioning during the debtor’s examination.

 

The mutual requests for sanctions/attorney’s fees are denied.

 

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10.  If the tentative ruling is uncontested, Plaintiffs are directed to prepare, circulate, and submit a written order reflecting this Court’s ruling verbatim for the Court’s signature, consistent with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1312.  The proposed order is to be submitted directly to Judge Jonathan E. Karesh, Department 20.

   


 

 

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of San Mateo

 

Presiding Judge Law and Motion Calendar

Judge: HONORABLE JOHN L. GRANDSAERT

Department 11

 

400 County Center, Redwood City

Courtroom 2D

 

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

 

If you plan to appear on any case on this calendar,

 you must call (650) 261-5111 before 4:00 p.m. and you must give notice also before 4:00 p.m. to all parties of your intent to appear pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1308(a)(1).

 

Case                   Title / Nature of Case

 

9:00

Line: 1

CIV538303     GREG MANCY VS. SUNRUN INC., ET AL.

 

 

GREG MANCY                              ADAM C. MCCALL

SUNRUN, INC.                            ANNA ERICKSON WHITE

 

 

Complex Case Status Conference

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Complex Case Status Conference is continued for 60 days to

November 22, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. on the Presiding Judge’s Law and Motion calendar as the case is not yet at issue.

 


9:00

Line: 2

CIV538304     GEORGE COHEN, ET AL. VS. SUNRUN INC., ET AL.

 

SUNRUN, INC.                               ROBERT L. WEBB

DAVID MOSS                                 JOHN T. JASNOCH

 

 

Complex Case Status Conference

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

The Complex Case Status Conference is continued for 60 days to

November 22, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. on the Presiding Judge’s Law and Motion calendar as the case is not yet at issue.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 


POSTED:  3:00 PM

 

 

© 2016 Superior Court of San Mateo County