On March 06, 2002 a
Party Statement
was filed
involving a dispute between
Meline, Charlen M,
Meline, Edward Richard,
Meline, Robert J,
Meline, Stephen, Iv,
and
Edgington, Melanie G,
Jessee, Nelda F,
Meline, David L,
Meline, Jack,
Meline & Rabo Farms Inc, A California Corporation,
Meline, Robert J,
Meline, Stephen, Iv,
Meline, Violet Arlene,
for (26) Unlimited Other Real Property
in the District Court of Butte County.
Preview
MUN (12: 2mm CM-11o
” ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY {Name bar number and address): FOR COURTUSE ONLY
___W. Z. JEFFERSON BROWI SBN 38996
PRICE & BROWN r
p. o. Box 1420
Chico, CA "95927
F _BLJLL@.§.<3.L1E.
TELEPHONENo.: (5 30) 34354412FAXN0. (Optional): (53 0) 34 3—7251 -__
F
Superior Cour?
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): _
I
I
i
ATTORNEY FOR (Name):DorOthV MaV RabO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE E Mamaua g
STREEr ADDRESS} 65 5 Oleander Avenue
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITYANDZIPCODE:
chicol CA 95926
BRANCH NAME:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: EDWARD RICHARD MELINE, et a1.
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: JACK MELINEI et al-
AND RELATED CROSS ACTION
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NUMBER:
(Check one): UNLIMITED CASE E LIMITED CASE 127180
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000
exceeds $25,000) or less)
A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows:
Date: June l3, 2003 Time;lO:30 a.m. Dept_; TBA Div.: Room:
Address of court (if different from the address above):
INSTRUCTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked, and the specified information must be provided.
1. Party or parties (answer one):
a. This statement is submitted by party (name):
b. E This statement is submitted jointly by parties (names):
Complaint and cross-complaint (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only)
a. The complaint was led on (date):
b. D The cross-complaint. if any. was led on (date):
3. Service (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only)
a D All parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served. or have appeared. or have been dismissed.
'
b. I: The following parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint
'(1) D have not been served (specify names and explain why not):
(2) have been served but have not appeared and have not been dismissed (specify names):
(3) have had a default entered against them (specify names):
c. D The following additional parties may be added (specify names, nature ofinvo/vement in case, and the date by which
they may be served):
4. Description of case
a. Typeofcasein complaint m cross-complaint (describe, including causes of action):
Partition
'
of real property.
Page10t4
Form Adopted tor Mandatory Use
Judicial Council ot CalifornIa CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Cal. Rulesoi Court.
rule 212
CM-1 10 [New July 1. 2002)
So$9
% P us
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: EDWD HERD MELJIE, et al. ”‘35NUMBER:
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: “JACK MEZLIDE, et al. 12 718 o
And related cross—action
4. b. Provide a brief siatement of the case. including any damages. (/fpersona/ injury damages are sought, specify the injury and
damages claimed, including medical expenses to date ndicate source and amount], estimated future medical expenses, lost
eamings to date, and'estimated future lost earnings. If equitable relief is sought,
describe the nature of the relief.)
Plaintiffs seek partition of almond orchards near Chico. The cross-
complaint seeks partition'of'range land east of Chico. These parties,
in their individual and in their representative capacities, own a
1/4 interest in the orchard property and the range land.
i (lfmore space is needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.)
5. Jury or nonjury trial ‘
The party or parties request D a jury trial a nonjury trial (if more than one party, provide the nameof each party
requesting a jury trial):
6. Trial date
a. [:1 The trial hasbeen set for (date):
b. No trial date has been set. This case will be ready for trial within
12 months of the date of the ling of the complaint (if
not, explain):
c. Dates on which parties or attorneys will not be available for trial (specify dates and explain reasons for unavailability):
7. Estimated length of trial
The party or parties estimate that the trial will take (check one):
a_ [:1 daysmedwrwnwed.
The
trial for the interlocutory judgment will take
b. hours (short causes) (specify): apprommly 2 days“ NO eStlmate can. be glven as t9
the amount of _
time required for the trlal ready to final
8. Trial representation (to be answered for each party) juagnent'
The party or parties will be represented at trial by the attorney or party listed
in thecaption E] by the following:
Attorney:
Firm:
Address:
Telephone number:
Fax number:
E-mail address:
. Party represented:
Additional representation is described in Attachment 8;
9. Preference
This case is entitled to preference (specify code section):
10. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
a. Counsel has has not provided the ADR information package identied in rule201.9 to the client and has
reviewed ADR options with the client. t
b. D All parties have agreed to a form of ADR. ADR will be completed by (date):
c. D The case has gone to an ADR process (indicate status):
CM",‘°‘”°WJ“.W°°21
>
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT “gm”
pLAINTIFF/PETITIONER; EDWA RICHARD MELINE, et a1. :ASENUMBER:
BEFENDANT/RESPONDENT; , JACK MELINE , Vet al . . 12 7]. 8 0
10. d. The party or parties are willing to participate
in (check all that apply);
(1) m Mediation
(2) E Nonbinding judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141. 12 (discovery to close 15 days before
E arbitration under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1612)
Nonbinding judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141 12
before trial. order required under Cal. Rules of Court. rule 1612) (discovery
to remain open until 30 days
) D Bindingjudicial arbitration
(5) Binding private arbitration
)VE Neutral case evaluation
) D Other (specify):
e. D This matter is subject to mandatoryjudicial arbitration because the amount in controversy does not exceed the
statutory limit.
f. Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount inCode of Civil
specied
Procedure section 1141. 11.
g. g I This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 1600. 5 ofthe California Rules of Court
(specify exemption).
Equitable relief.
11. Settlement conference
The party or parties are willing to participate
in an early settlement conference (specify when):
12. Insurance ‘
D
.
a. Insurance carrier.if any, for party lingthis statement (name):
b. Reservation of rights: D Yes E No
D Coverage issues will signicantly affect resolution of this case (explain):
13. Jurisdiction
Indicate any matters that may affect the court' s jurisdiction or processing of this case.
and describe the status.
D Bankruptcy E Other (specify).
Status:
14. Related cases, consolidation, and coordination
There are companion, underlying. or related cases.
Name of case:
g; Name of court:
(3) Case number:
(4) Status:
Additional cases are described in Attachment 14a.
b. D Amotionto D consolidate coordinate , willbe led by‘(nameparty):
Bifurcation
D
15.
The party or parties intend to lea motion for an order bifurcating. severing, or coordinating the following issues or causesof
action (specify moving party, type of motion, and reasons):
16. Other motions
D The party or parties expect to le
.
the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type ofmotion,
x
and issues):
cmawmewmytzooz; J o! 4
cAss MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page
.
‘
"\
.
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: EDWARD CHARD MELINE, et a1, ‘SENUMBER:
~
et a1. 127180
BEFENDANT/RESPONDEN T.. JACK MELINE,
17. Discovery
a D The party or parties have completed all discovery
b. The following discovery will be completed by the date specied (describe all anticipated discovery):
Descrigtion Date
Par_ty I
Defendants and cross—defendantsl depositions of
experts and production of documents of parties '7/04
c. D The following discovery issues are anticipated (specify):
18. Economic Litigation
.
a. D ThisIs a limited civil case(i. e. the amount demanded is $25. 000 or less) and the economic litigation procedures in Code
of Civil Procedure sections 90 through 98 will apply to this case
b ThisIs a limited civil case and a motion to withdraw the case from the economic litigation procedures or for additional
discovery will be led (if checked,explain specically Why economic litigation procedures relating to discovery or trial
should not app/y to this case):
1'9. Other issues
The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management
°°nference (Spec’m’ See Attachment 19.
20. Meet and confer
a. D The party or parties have met and conferred with all parties on all subjects required by rule 212 of the California Rules of
Court (if not, explain):
b. After meeting and conferring as required by rule 212 of the California Rules of Court. the parties agree on the following
ammwf
See Attachment.20.b.
21. Case management orders
C]
.
Previous case management orders in this case are (check one): none attached as Attachment 21.
2
22. Total number of pages attached (if any):
|am completely familiar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and ADR. as well as otherissues
raised by this statement, and will possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these issues at the time ofthecase management’
conference. including the written authority of the party where required.
W. Z. Jefferson Brown ,V }
'
(TYPE 0R PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE 0F PARTY on ATTORNEY)
(TYPE QR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE 0F PARTY 0R ATTORNEY)
D Additional signatures are attached
CMHMMwMwmm CASEMANAGEMENTSTATHWENT Pwdt
’
Meline V. Meline, et a1. Case N0. 127180
and Related Cross-Action
Attachment 19.
The party or parties request that the following additional matters be
considered or determined at the case management conference:
Dorothy May Rabo died on March 13, 2003. Ron Rabo, Michael Rabo, Nick
Rabo, Mary Rabo Schweiger and Sue Miller have been appointed as the Executors
of her estate and Successor Trustees of the Marital and Exemption Trusts of Fred
A. Rabo. The Marital Trust of Fred A. Rabo is the owner of a portion of the
property described in the complaint on le herein. The Exemption Trust of Fred
A. Rabo is the owner of the remainder of said property. Therefore, the above—
named persons in their representative capacities should be substituted as
defendants in the place and stead of Dorothy May Rabo.
Dorothy May Rabo, in her capacity as Trustee of the 1994 Rabo Revocable
Trust, was the sole Trustee of said trust which owns a 25% interest in the
property described in the cross—complaint. No provision was made in the trust for
a Successor Trustee. Pending court appointment of a Successor Trustee, which
will'be handled by other attorneys, there is no one who can act on behalf of said
irrevocable trust. On the‘appointment of a Successor Trustee, I anticipate that
the trust estate will be immediately distributed to the above-named ve persons
who are all of the beneciaries of‘ the trust and at such time, it would be
appropriate to substitute them as defendants in the place and stead of Dorothy
May Rabo. Because they hold all of the beneficial interests in the trust, the court
may deem it appropriate to substitute them in their individual capacities as cross—
defendants in the above action at this time.
Attachment
‘q PW I 0f
Meline v. Meline, et a1. Case No. 127180
and Related Cross-Action
Attachment 20.b.
After meeting and conferring as required by rule 2 1 2 of the California Rules
of Court, we present the following:
The parties to the complaint reached substantial agreement on the division
of the orchard property and a methodology for balancing their accounts. A portion
of the settlement required that a portion of the range property described in the
cross—complaint be allocated to the parties now represented by William Ward.
This allocation requires the consent of the owners of the range property who,
although they are similar to the owners of the orchard property, are not identical.
The parties represented by James Berglund are the children of the plaintiffs and
owners of a benecial interest in 25% of the range property. They have objected
to the portion of the settlement that would require a partial division of the range
property at this time. The parties represented by this ofce have no objection to
the proposed division of the range property which apparently is necessary to
complete the agreement for partition of the orchard property. Apparently,
negotiations between Mr. Ward’s clients and Mr. Berglund’s clients to resolve the
issues related to a transfer of a portion of the range property have been
unsuccessful. The negotiated resolution of the partition of the orchard property
will fail unless these two sets of interested parties can resolve their differences.
We request that the court order an early mandatory settlement conference
with all parties to the complaint and cross-complaint with authority to agree to a
binding settlement to be present (either in person or through their attorney in
fact). A settlement conference judge should be appointed who is experienced in
matters concerning farming partnerships and land division issues. In the
alternative, the parties should be ordered to retain a mediator, with the costs of
the mediator to be divided between the various groups of defendants who are
represented by separate counsel. A suggested mediator is the Honorable Noel
Watkins, retired Superior Court Judge from Tehama County.
Attachment lobmme l of l
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I,declare that:
I am a resident of the County of Butte, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within matter; my business address is 466 Vallombrosa Avenue,
Chico, California. Iam familiar with this rm's practice for collection and processing correspondence
for mailing with the United States Postal Service pursuant to which practice all correspondence will
be deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day and in the ordinary course of
business.
On May 30, 2003, I served the CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT on the parties
in said cause by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with rst-class postage
thereon, and placed for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices, addressed as
follows:
John Jeffery Carter
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 3606
Chico, CA 95927-3606
Nels A. Christensen
Christensen & Schwarz
1 Governors Lane
Chico, CA 95926
William A. Ward
Attorney at Law
9 Williamsburg Lane
Chico, CA 95926
James B. Berglund
Attorney at Law
1639 Bird St.
Oroville, CA 95965
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 30, 2003, at Chico,
California.
W29 Cheryl Goodwin
LAW OFFICES OF
PRICE & BROWN
PO. BOX 1420
CHICO, CA 95927
Preview
MUN (12: 2mm CM-11o ” ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY {Name bar number and address): FOR COURTUSE ONLY ___W. Z. JEFFERSON BROWI SBN 38996 PRICE & BROWN r p. o. Box 1420 Chico, CA "95927 F _BLJLL@.§.<3.L1E. TELEPHONENo.: (5 30) 34354412FAXN0. (Optional): (53 0) 34 3—7251 -__ F Superior Cour? E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): _ I I i ATTORNEY FOR (Name):DorOthV MaV RabO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE E Mamaua g STREEr ADDRESS} 65 5 Oleander Avenue MAILING ADDRESS: CITYANDZIPCODE: chicol CA 95926 BRANCH NAME: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: EDWARD RICHARD MELINE, et a1. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: JACK MELINEI et al- AND RELATED CROSS ACTION CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NUMBER: (Check one): UNLIMITED CASE E LIMITED CASE 127180 (Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000 exceeds $25,000) or less) A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows: Date: June l3, 2003 Time;lO:30 a.m. Dept_; TBA Div.: Room: Address of court (if different from the address above): INSTRUCTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked, and the specified information must be provided. 1. Party or parties (answer one): a. This statement is submitted by party (name): b. E This statement is submitted jointly by parties (names): Complaint and cross-complaint (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only) a. The complaint was led on (date): b. D The cross-complaint. if any. was led on (date): 3. Service (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only) a D All parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served. or have appeared. or have been dismissed. ' b. I: The following parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint '(1) D have not been served (specify names and explain why not): (2) have been served but have not appeared and have not been dismissed (specify names): (3) have had a default entered against them (specify names): c. D The following additional parties may be added (specify names, nature ofinvo/vement in case, and the date by which they may be served): 4. Description of case a. Typeofcasein complaint m cross-complaint (describe, including causes of action): Partition ' of real property. Page10t4 Form Adopted tor Mandatory Use Judicial Council ot CalifornIa CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Cal. Rulesoi Court. rule 212 CM-1 10 [New July 1. 2002) So$9 % P us PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: EDWD HERD MELJIE, et al. ”‘35NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: “JACK MEZLIDE, et al. 12 718 o And related cross—action 4. b. Provide a brief siatement of the case. including any damages. (/fpersona/ injury damages are sought, specify the injury and damages claimed, including medical expenses to date ndicate source and amount], estimated future medical expenses, lost eamings to date, and'estimated future lost earnings. If equitable relief is sought, describe the nature of the relief.) Plaintiffs seek partition of almond orchards near Chico. The cross- complaint seeks partition'of'range land east of Chico. These parties, in their individual and in their representative capacities, own a 1/4 interest in the orchard property and the range land. i (lfmore space is needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.) 5. Jury or nonjury trial ‘ The party or parties request D a jury trial a nonjury trial (if more than one party, provide the nameof each party requesting a jury trial): 6. Trial date a. [:1 The trial hasbeen set for (date): b. No trial date has been set. This case will be ready for trial within 12 months of the date of the ling of the complaint (if not, explain): c. Dates on which parties or attorneys will not be available for trial (specify dates and explain reasons for unavailability): 7. Estimated length of trial The party or parties estimate that the trial will take (check one): a_ [:1 daysmedwrwnwed. The trial for the interlocutory judgment will take b. hours (short causes) (specify): apprommly 2 days“ NO eStlmate can. be glven as t9 the amount of _ time required for the trlal ready to final 8. Trial representation (to be answered for each party) juagnent' The party or parties will be represented at trial by the attorney or party listed in thecaption E] by the following: Attorney: Firm: Address: Telephone number: Fax number: E-mail address: . Party represented: Additional representation is described in Attachment 8; 9. Preference This case is entitled to preference (specify code section): 10. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) a. Counsel has has not provided the ADR information package identied in rule201.9 to the client and has reviewed ADR options with the client. t b. D All parties have agreed to a form of ADR. ADR will be completed by (date): c. D The case has gone to an ADR process (indicate status): CM",‘°‘”°WJ“.W°°21 > CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT “gm” pLAINTIFF/PETITIONER; EDWA RICHARD MELINE, et a1. :ASENUMBER: BEFENDANT/RESPONDENT; , JACK MELINE , Vet al . . 12 7]. 8 0 10. d. The party or parties are willing to participate in (check all that apply); (1) m Mediation (2) E Nonbinding judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141. 12 (discovery to close 15 days before E arbitration under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1612) Nonbinding judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141 12 before trial. order required under Cal. Rules of Court. rule 1612) (discovery to remain open until 30 days ) D Bindingjudicial arbitration (5) Binding private arbitration )VE Neutral case evaluation ) D Other (specify): e. D This matter is subject to mandatoryjudicial arbitration because the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory limit. f. Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount inCode of Civil specied Procedure section 1141. 11. g. g I This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 1600. 5 ofthe California Rules of Court (specify exemption). Equitable relief. 11. Settlement conference The party or parties are willing to participate in an early settlement conference (specify when): 12. Insurance ‘ D . a. Insurance carrier.if any, for party lingthis statement (name): b. Reservation of rights: D Yes E No D Coverage issues will signicantly affect resolution of this case (explain): 13. Jurisdiction Indicate any matters that may affect the court' s jurisdiction or processing of this case. and describe the status. D Bankruptcy E Other (specify). Status: 14. Related cases, consolidation, and coordination There are companion, underlying. or related cases. Name of case: g; Name of court: (3) Case number: (4) Status: Additional cases are described in Attachment 14a. b. D Amotionto D consolidate coordinate , willbe led by‘(nameparty): Bifurcation D 15. The party or parties intend to lea motion for an order bifurcating. severing, or coordinating the following issues or causesof action (specify moving party, type of motion, and reasons): 16. Other motions D The party or parties expect to le . the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type ofmotion, x and issues): cmawmewmytzooz; J o! 4 cAss MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page . ‘ "\ . PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: EDWARD CHARD MELINE, et a1, ‘SENUMBER: ~ et a1. 127180 BEFENDANT/RESPONDEN T.. JACK MELINE, 17. Discovery a D The party or parties have completed all discovery b. The following discovery will be completed by the date specied (describe all anticipated discovery): Descrigtion Date Par_ty I Defendants and cross—defendantsl depositions of experts and production of documents of parties '7/04 c. D The following discovery issues are anticipated (specify): 18. Economic Litigation . a. D ThisIs a limited civil case(i. e. the amount demanded is $25. 000 or less) and the economic litigation procedures in Code of Civil Procedure sections 90 through 98 will apply to this case b ThisIs a limited civil case and a motion to withdraw the case from the economic litigation procedures or for additional discovery will be led (if checked,explain specically Why economic litigation procedures relating to discovery or trial should not app/y to this case): 1'9. Other issues The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management °°nference (Spec’m’ See Attachment 19. 20. Meet and confer a. D The party or parties have met and conferred with all parties on all subjects required by rule 212 of the California Rules of Court (if not, explain): b. After meeting and conferring as required by rule 212 of the California Rules of Court. the parties agree on the following ammwf See Attachment.20.b. 21. Case management orders C] . Previous case management orders in this case are (check one): none attached as Attachment 21. 2 22. Total number of pages attached (if any): |am completely familiar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and ADR. as well as otherissues raised by this statement, and will possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these issues at the time ofthecase management’ conference. including the written authority of the party where required. W. Z. Jefferson Brown ,V } ' (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE 0F PARTY on ATTORNEY) (TYPE QR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE 0F PARTY 0R ATTORNEY) D Additional signatures are attached CMHMMwMwmm CASEMANAGEMENTSTATHWENT Pwdt ’ Meline V. Meline, et a1. Case N0. 127180 and Related Cross-Action Attachment 19. The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management conference: Dorothy May Rabo died on March 13, 2003. Ron Rabo, Michael Rabo, Nick Rabo, Mary Rabo Schweiger and Sue Miller have been appointed as the Executors of her estate and Successor Trustees of the Marital and Exemption Trusts of Fred A. Rabo. The Marital Trust of Fred A. Rabo is the owner of a portion of the property described in the complaint on le herein. The Exemption Trust of Fred A. Rabo is the owner of the remainder of said property. Therefore, the above— named persons in their representative capacities should be substituted as defendants in the place and stead of Dorothy May Rabo. Dorothy May Rabo, in her capacity as Trustee of the 1994 Rabo Revocable Trust, was the sole Trustee of said trust which owns a 25% interest in the property described in the cross—complaint. No provision was made in the trust for a Successor Trustee. Pending court appointment of a Successor Trustee, which will'be handled by other attorneys, there is no one who can act on behalf of said irrevocable trust. On the‘appointment of a Successor Trustee, I anticipate that the trust estate will be immediately distributed to the above-named ve persons who are all of the beneciaries of‘ the trust and at such time, it would be appropriate to substitute them as defendants in the place and stead of Dorothy May Rabo. Because they hold all of the beneficial interests in the trust, the court may deem it appropriate to substitute them in their individual capacities as cross— defendants in the above action at this time. Attachment ‘q PW I 0f Meline v. Meline, et a1. Case No. 127180 and Related Cross-Action Attachment 20.b. After meeting and conferring as required by rule 2 1 2 of the California Rules of Court, we present the following: The parties to the complaint reached substantial agreement on the division of the orchard property and a methodology for balancing their accounts. A portion of the settlement required that a portion of the range property described in the cross—complaint be allocated to the parties now represented by William Ward. This allocation requires the consent of the owners of the range property who, although they are similar to the owners of the orchard property, are not identical. The parties represented by James Berglund are the children of the plaintiffs and owners of a benecial interest in 25% of the range property. They have objected to the portion of the settlement that would require a partial division of the range property at this time. The parties represented by this ofce have no objection to the proposed division of the range property which apparently is necessary to complete the agreement for partition of the orchard property. Apparently, negotiations between Mr. Ward’s clients and Mr. Berglund’s clients to resolve the issues related to a transfer of a portion of the range property have been unsuccessful. The negotiated resolution of the partition of the orchard property will fail unless these two sets of interested parties can resolve their differences. We request that the court order an early mandatory settlement conference with all parties to the complaint and cross-complaint with authority to agree to a binding settlement to be present (either in person or through their attorney in fact). A settlement conference judge should be appointed who is experienced in matters concerning farming partnerships and land division issues. In the alternative, the parties should be ordered to retain a mediator, with the costs of the mediator to be divided between the various groups of defendants who are represented by separate counsel. A suggested mediator is the Honorable Noel Watkins, retired Superior Court Judge from Tehama County. Attachment lobmme l of l PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I,declare that: I am a resident of the County of Butte, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within matter; my business address is 466 Vallombrosa Avenue, Chico, California. Iam familiar with this rm's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service pursuant to which practice all correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day and in the ordinary course of business. On May 30, 2003, I served the CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT on the parties in said cause by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with rst-class postage thereon, and placed for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices, addressed as follows: John Jeffery Carter Attorney at Law P. O. Box 3606 Chico, CA 95927-3606 Nels A. Christensen Christensen & Schwarz 1 Governors Lane Chico, CA 95926 William A. Ward Attorney at Law 9 Williamsburg Lane Chico, CA 95926 James B. Berglund Attorney at Law 1639 Bird St. Oroville, CA 95965 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 30, 2003, at Chico, California. W29 Cheryl Goodwin LAW OFFICES OF PRICE & BROWN PO. BOX 1420 CHICO, CA 95927