Preview
1 ALBERT M. T. FINCH, III, ESQ. State Bar # 196478
JASON DENG, ESQ. State Bar # 336941
2 FORAN GLENNON
3 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95110
4 tfinch@fgppr.com
jdeng@fgppr.com
5 Telephone: (669) 317-4285
6 Facsimile: (312) 863-5099
Attorneys for Defendant BRIAN HUNSAKER
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
9
10 GARY KOOP CASE NO. SCV-266944
11 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S
12 vs. JOINDER TO DEFENDANT FIRE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S MOTION TO
13 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE dba BIFURCATE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP; BRIAN REFORMATION
14
HUNSAKER,
15
Defendants. Motion Hearing Date: November 1, 2023
16 Time: 3:00 P.M.
Dept: 19
17
18 Action Filed Action Filed: August 24, 2020
Amended Complaint filed: January 6, 2021
19 Trial Date: November 17, 2023
20
21
22 COMES NOW, Defendant BRIAN HUNSAKER (hereinafter as “Defendant Hunsaker”)
23 hereby joins Defendant FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE dba FARMERS INSURANCE
24 GROUP’S (hereinafter as “Defendant Farmers”) Motion to Bifurcate and/or Sever Plaintiff GARY
25 KOOP’S (hereinafter as “Plaintiff”) equitable claim for reformation from the remaining legal claim
26 in this action.
27 It is well established in California jurisprudence that in a case involving both legal and
28 equitable claims, the trial court may proceed to try the equitable claim first. See Raedeke v.
-1-
DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S JOINDER TO DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S MOTION
TO BIFURCATE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR REFORMATION
1 Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 665, 671. (Citation omitted.); see also Hoopes v.
2 Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 157. Typically, equitable claims are heard outside the presence
3 of the jury to avoid potential prejudice from the evidence presented and because no right to a jury
4 are involved in those claims. It is well within the discretion of a Court to order bifurcation of
5 equitable causes of action. In fact, Code of Civil Procedure Section 598 provides in pertinent part
6 regarding the trial court’s authority to bifurcate trial of issues:
The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the
7 economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on
8 motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order … that the trial of any
issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof
9 in the case. (hereinafter as “CCP §598”.)
10 Here, Plaintiff alleges 7 causes of action against Defendant Farmers from the operative First
11 Amended Complaint – breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
12 dealing, reformation, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, and violation of Business & Professional
13 Code Section 17200 et seq. and 3 causes of action against Defendant Hunsaker - fraud,
14 misrepresentation, and negligence. The cause of action for reformation against Defendant Farmers
15 is the only equitable claim while the others are of legal claims. See Komorsky v. Farmers Ins.
16 Exchange (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 960, 974 [“Reformation is an equitable remedy the essential
17 purpose of which is to ensure the contract, as reformed, reflects the parties’ mutual intention.”
18 (Citation omitted)]. Applying the well-established California jurisprudence to try equitable claim
19 first when both legal and equitable claims are presented before the court and the pursuant the trial
20 court’s inherent power to bifurcate, the Court shall grant Defendant’s Farmers’ motion to bifurcate
21 Plaintiff’s equitable reformation claim from the other legal claims and try the reformation claim
22 first. See Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974); see also Hoopes v. Dolan (2008); CCP
23 §598.
24 Granting Defendant Farmers’ Motion to Bifurcate will also promote the economy and
25 efficiency of the underlying litigation by having a bench trial on Plaintiff’s reformation claim
26 without convening a jury. Defendant Hunsaker believes that the resolution of Plaintiff’s
27 reformation claim first will give the parties a clear understanding of the final overall outcome of the
28 case as it relates to other important issues and potentially lead to further negotiations on alternative
-2-
DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S JOINDER TO DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S MOTION
TO BIFURCATE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR REFORMATION
1 resolution of the case. The final outcome of the matter is more likely to be one that avoids a costly
2 jury trial which would promote interests of judicial economy, conserve the availability of the
3 Courts’s busy calendar, and overall help all parties avoid the time and expense of a very expensive
4 jury trial. A short period of time between the trials of the equitable claim and legal claims could be
5 given to allow for discussion of the outcome and findings from the bench trial to allow the parties to
6 contemplate those issues and to allow the parties make motions to further narrow the issues in a
7 potential jury trial. Proceeding with the equitable claim first would in the opinion of Defendant
8 Hunsaker greatly narrow the issues to be decided in the jury trial and overall reduce the costs and
9 fees of all parties moving forward.
10 Defendant Hunsaker’s involvement in the first trial would be limited to offer testimony
11 regarding Plaintiff’s procurement and subsequent renewals of the home insurance policy at issue
12 during relevant time of this dispute and his engagement with Plaintiff in that time period. Although
13 that might involve some repetitive testimony, the potential benefits far outweigh the burden of a
14 few hours of testimony. Furthermore, granting Defendant Farmers’ Motion to Bifurcate will
15 provide an opportunity to Farmers to pay the modified coverage limit to Plaintiff should the Court
16 find the reformation claim for Plaintiff. (Defendant Farmers’ Motion to Bifurcate, 10:6-8).
17 For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant Hunsaker joins Defendant Farmers’ Motion to
18 Bifurcate and/or Sever Plaintiff’s equitable claim for reformation from the remaining legal claim in
19 this action. Defendant Hunsaker would also request that a short period of time be left between the
20 trials of the equity claim and legal claims for settlement discussions and any necessary motion
21 practice as a result of the findings.
22
23 Dated: October 19, 2023 FORAN GLENNON
24
25
26 _____________________________
27 ALBERT M. T. FINCH, III, ESQ.
JASON DENG, ESQ.
28 Attorneys for Defendant BRIAN HUNSAKER
-3-
DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S JOINDER TO DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S MOTION
TO BIFURCATE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR REFORMATION
Koop v. Fire Insurance Exchange dba Farmers Insurance Group, et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-266944
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I am a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, am employed in the City of
3
San Jose and County of Santa Clara, and not a party to the within action. My business address is
4
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 250, San Jose, California 95110. On the date set forth below, I
5
served true and correct copies of the DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S JOINDER TO
6
DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE
7
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR REFORMATION upon the parties to this action as follows:
8
[ ] MAIL - I placed sealed, postage prepaid envelopes in the United States mail in said
9 city, addressed as follows:
10 [ ] HAND DELIVERY - I delivered them personally to the following addresses and/or
individuals:
11
[ ] FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - I ordered them to be delivered by electronic facsimile
12 transmission to the following individuals:
13 [ ] COURIER - I delivered them to a professional courier with instructions for personal
delivery this day to:
14
[X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Based on a court order or an agreement of the
15 parties hereto to accept service by electronic transmission, the document(s) specified
herein were served electronically to email address(es) listed for each party in the Service
16 List below. If no email address is available for a party, the document(s) were deposited in
the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope
17 with postage fully prepaid to said party.
18 Lisa S. Kantor, Esq. Stacy Monahan Tucker, Esq.
Glenn R. Kantor, Esq. Monahan Tucker Law, PC
19
Kantor & Kantor, LLP 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382
20 19839 Nordhoff Street Woodinville, WA 98072
Northridge, CA 91324 Tel.: (206) 486-3553; Fax: (206) 339-7155
21 lkantor@kantorlaw.net smtucker@mtlawpc.com
gkantor@kantorlaw.net cspencer@mtlawpc.com Carolyn Spencer
22
trozelle@kantorlaw.net Tim Rozelle -assistant
23 cmormann@kantorlaw.net- assistant Co-counsel for Plaintiff Gary Koop
Tel.: (818) 886-2525; Fax: (818) 350-6272
24 Attorney for Plaintiff Gary Koop
25
26
27
28
-1-
PROOF OF SERVICE
Koop v. Fire Insurance Exchange dba Farmers Insurance Group, et al.
Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-266944
1 Peter Schwartz, Esq.
Christopher R. Wagner, Esq.
2
Margaret M. Drugan, Esq.
3 David Jones, Esq.
Steven Inouye, Esq.
4 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
5
Los Angeles, CA 90071
6 pschwartz@grsm.com
cwagner@grsm.com
7 mdrugan@grsm.com
sinouye@grsm.com
8
djones@grsm.com
9 ilopez@grsm.com (Isabel Lopez)
Tel.: (213) 576-5019; Fax: (213) 680-4470
10 Attorney for Defendant Fire Insurance
Exchange Company
11
.
12
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
13
foregoing is true and correct.
14
Executed on October 19, 2023, at San Jose, California.
15
16 _______Karen Okasaki______________
Karen Okasaki
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 ALBERT M. T. FINCH, III, ESQ. State Bar # 196478 JASON DENG, ESQ. State Bar # 336941 2 FORAN GLENNON 3 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95110 4 tfinch@fgppr.com jdeng@fgppr.com 5 Telephone: (669) 317-4285 6 Facsimile: (312) 863-5099 Attorneys for Defendant BRIAN HUNSAKER 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 9 10 GARY KOOP CASE NO. SCV-266944 11 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S 12 vs. JOINDER TO DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S MOTION TO 13 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE dba BIFURCATE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP; BRIAN REFORMATION 14 HUNSAKER, 15 Defendants. Motion Hearing Date: November 1, 2023 16 Time: 3:00 P.M. Dept: 19 17 18 Action Filed Action Filed: August 24, 2020 Amended Complaint filed: January 6, 2021 19 Trial Date: November 17, 2023 20 21 22 COMES NOW, Defendant BRIAN HUNSAKER (hereinafter as “Defendant Hunsaker”) 23 hereby joins Defendant FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE dba FARMERS INSURANCE 24 GROUP’S (hereinafter as “Defendant Farmers”) Motion to Bifurcate and/or Sever Plaintiff GARY 25 KOOP’S (hereinafter as “Plaintiff”) equitable claim for reformation from the remaining legal claim 26 in this action. 27 It is well established in California jurisprudence that in a case involving both legal and 28 equitable claims, the trial court may proceed to try the equitable claim first. See Raedeke v. -1- DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S JOINDER TO DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR REFORMATION 1 Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 665, 671. (Citation omitted.); see also Hoopes v. 2 Dolan (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 146, 157. Typically, equitable claims are heard outside the presence 3 of the jury to avoid potential prejudice from the evidence presented and because no right to a jury 4 are involved in those claims. It is well within the discretion of a Court to order bifurcation of 5 equitable causes of action. In fact, Code of Civil Procedure Section 598 provides in pertinent part 6 regarding the trial court’s authority to bifurcate trial of issues: The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the 7 economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on 8 motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order … that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof 9 in the case. (hereinafter as “CCP §598”.) 10 Here, Plaintiff alleges 7 causes of action against Defendant Farmers from the operative First 11 Amended Complaint – breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair 12 dealing, reformation, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, and violation of Business & Professional 13 Code Section 17200 et seq. and 3 causes of action against Defendant Hunsaker - fraud, 14 misrepresentation, and negligence. The cause of action for reformation against Defendant Farmers 15 is the only equitable claim while the others are of legal claims. See Komorsky v. Farmers Ins. 16 Exchange (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 960, 974 [“Reformation is an equitable remedy the essential 17 purpose of which is to ensure the contract, as reformed, reflects the parties’ mutual intention.” 18 (Citation omitted)]. Applying the well-established California jurisprudence to try equitable claim 19 first when both legal and equitable claims are presented before the court and the pursuant the trial 20 court’s inherent power to bifurcate, the Court shall grant Defendant’s Farmers’ motion to bifurcate 21 Plaintiff’s equitable reformation claim from the other legal claims and try the reformation claim 22 first. See Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974); see also Hoopes v. Dolan (2008); CCP 23 §598. 24 Granting Defendant Farmers’ Motion to Bifurcate will also promote the economy and 25 efficiency of the underlying litigation by having a bench trial on Plaintiff’s reformation claim 26 without convening a jury. Defendant Hunsaker believes that the resolution of Plaintiff’s 27 reformation claim first will give the parties a clear understanding of the final overall outcome of the 28 case as it relates to other important issues and potentially lead to further negotiations on alternative -2- DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S JOINDER TO DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR REFORMATION 1 resolution of the case. The final outcome of the matter is more likely to be one that avoids a costly 2 jury trial which would promote interests of judicial economy, conserve the availability of the 3 Courts’s busy calendar, and overall help all parties avoid the time and expense of a very expensive 4 jury trial. A short period of time between the trials of the equitable claim and legal claims could be 5 given to allow for discussion of the outcome and findings from the bench trial to allow the parties to 6 contemplate those issues and to allow the parties make motions to further narrow the issues in a 7 potential jury trial. Proceeding with the equitable claim first would in the opinion of Defendant 8 Hunsaker greatly narrow the issues to be decided in the jury trial and overall reduce the costs and 9 fees of all parties moving forward. 10 Defendant Hunsaker’s involvement in the first trial would be limited to offer testimony 11 regarding Plaintiff’s procurement and subsequent renewals of the home insurance policy at issue 12 during relevant time of this dispute and his engagement with Plaintiff in that time period. Although 13 that might involve some repetitive testimony, the potential benefits far outweigh the burden of a 14 few hours of testimony. Furthermore, granting Defendant Farmers’ Motion to Bifurcate will 15 provide an opportunity to Farmers to pay the modified coverage limit to Plaintiff should the Court 16 find the reformation claim for Plaintiff. (Defendant Farmers’ Motion to Bifurcate, 10:6-8). 17 For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant Hunsaker joins Defendant Farmers’ Motion to 18 Bifurcate and/or Sever Plaintiff’s equitable claim for reformation from the remaining legal claim in 19 this action. Defendant Hunsaker would also request that a short period of time be left between the 20 trials of the equity claim and legal claims for settlement discussions and any necessary motion 21 practice as a result of the findings. 22 23 Dated: October 19, 2023 FORAN GLENNON 24 25 26 _____________________________ 27 ALBERT M. T. FINCH, III, ESQ. JASON DENG, ESQ. 28 Attorneys for Defendant BRIAN HUNSAKER -3- DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S JOINDER TO DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR REFORMATION Koop v. Fire Insurance Exchange dba Farmers Insurance Group, et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-266944 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, am employed in the City of 3 San Jose and County of Santa Clara, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 4 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 250, San Jose, California 95110. On the date set forth below, I 5 served true and correct copies of the DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S JOINDER TO 6 DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE 7 PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR REFORMATION upon the parties to this action as follows: 8 [ ] MAIL - I placed sealed, postage prepaid envelopes in the United States mail in said 9 city, addressed as follows: 10 [ ] HAND DELIVERY - I delivered them personally to the following addresses and/or individuals: 11 [ ] FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - I ordered them to be delivered by electronic facsimile 12 transmission to the following individuals: 13 [ ] COURIER - I delivered them to a professional courier with instructions for personal delivery this day to: 14 [X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION. Based on a court order or an agreement of the 15 parties hereto to accept service by electronic transmission, the document(s) specified herein were served electronically to email address(es) listed for each party in the Service 16 List below. If no email address is available for a party, the document(s) were deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope 17 with postage fully prepaid to said party. 18 Lisa S. Kantor, Esq. Stacy Monahan Tucker, Esq. Glenn R. Kantor, Esq. Monahan Tucker Law, PC 19 Kantor & Kantor, LLP 14241 NE Woodinville-Duvall Road, Suite 382 20 19839 Nordhoff Street Woodinville, WA 98072 Northridge, CA 91324 Tel.: (206) 486-3553; Fax: (206) 339-7155 21 lkantor@kantorlaw.net smtucker@mtlawpc.com gkantor@kantorlaw.net cspencer@mtlawpc.com Carolyn Spencer 22 trozelle@kantorlaw.net Tim Rozelle -assistant 23 cmormann@kantorlaw.net- assistant Co-counsel for Plaintiff Gary Koop Tel.: (818) 886-2525; Fax: (818) 350-6272 24 Attorney for Plaintiff Gary Koop 25 26 27 28 -1- PROOF OF SERVICE Koop v. Fire Insurance Exchange dba Farmers Insurance Group, et al. Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-266944 1 Peter Schwartz, Esq. Christopher R. Wagner, Esq. 2 Margaret M. Drugan, Esq. 3 David Jones, Esq. Steven Inouye, Esq. 4 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor 5 Los Angeles, CA 90071 6 pschwartz@grsm.com cwagner@grsm.com 7 mdrugan@grsm.com sinouye@grsm.com 8 djones@grsm.com 9 ilopez@grsm.com (Isabel Lopez) Tel.: (213) 576-5019; Fax: (213) 680-4470 10 Attorney for Defendant Fire Insurance Exchange Company 11 . 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 13 foregoing is true and correct. 14 Executed on October 19, 2023, at San Jose, California. 15 16 _______Karen Okasaki______________ Karen Okasaki 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- PROOF OF SERVICE