Preview
b)
Raymond L. Sandelman SBN 078020
Attorney at Law
Cyb‘nf‘b—U
3075 Cohasset Road, Suite 1
Chico, CA 95973
F2
Rh“
hm“
c
M
a -&'
(530) 343—5090
343-5091 (FAX)
§§E§__;
(530)
i? 3
3
W
SQ
1‘:
é
I
Attorney for Ron Rabo, Michael Rabo, Frederick
Rabo, Mary Rabo Schweiger, and Sue Miller as
as successors in interest to the Fred and Dorothy
Rabo 1994 Irrevocable Trust dated 12/19/94
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR TI-E COUNTY OF BUTTE
'
EDWARD RICHARD MELINE et al., No.: 127180
Plaintiffs,
’
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL
v. i Attached Document: Declaration of Alan
E. Burchett
JACK MELINE, et. al.,
Hearing Date: 6/24/04
Defendants. Hearing Time: 1:00 p.m.
Judge: William Lamb
Department: TBA
Date of Complaint: 3/6/02
/ Trial Date: None Set
1. Introduction
lessen v. Hartford Cas. Ins. C0. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 698, 713 holds that although the
rules concerning recusal do not a "bright line" standard, the trial court can apply the
establish
rules with "reason, logic and common sense." The two declarations by attorneys to be considered
by the Court state that no information relevant to this partition action was
condential
communicated by Stephen Meline IV or Robert J. Meline to the law rm of Stewart, Humpherys,
Burchett, Sandelman & Molin (hereafter the “Law Firm”) and that the Law Firm never
1
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL
Meline IV or Robert J. Meline regarding partition issues. The Opposition
represented Stephen
2004 the Brief”) pointed out that there can be no
Brief led April 16, (hereafter “Opposition
an between the complaining party and the
recusal absent a showing attorney—client relationship
which the confidential information was imparted (See Maruman Integrated
attorney during
Circuits, Inc. v. Consortium C0. (1985) 166 Ca1.App.3d 443, 447).
The declarations by Stephen Meline never address the critical issue of exactly what
condential information relevant to this partition action he thinks that he disclosed to the Law
Firm in the of his adversary Nick (Frederick) Rabo or otherwise. The presence of Mr.
presence
Rabo at the 14, 2001 meeting establishes that there was no opportunity for condential
August
information to be (See City Nat’l Bank v. Adams (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 315, 327-328
divulged
and Ver Bryck v. Luby (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 842, 845).
95973
The and common sense all‘show that there was no
(530) 343-5090 / (530) 343—5091 (FAX)
declarations, exhibits, reason, logic
3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE 1, CHICO, CA
J
RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN
between Stephen Meline IV and/or Robert .Meline and the Law Firm
attorney-client relationship
A'ITORNEY AT LAw
and that the Law Firm never received any condential information from Stephen Meline IV and/or
Robert J. Meline regarding the partition issues involved in this litigation.
2. The Declaration Of Alan E. Burchett Sets Forth
Facts That Show That N0 Confidential Information Relevant
To The Partition Action Was Received By The Law Firm
The Declaration of Raymond L. Sandelman led with the Opposition Brief stated in part
that:
I am aware that the law rm formerly known as Stewart, Humpherys,
Burchett, Sandelman & Molin represented Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. concerning a
dispute with Edward Richard Meline (known as Dick Meline) and his son Randy
Meline (through his corporation R.C. Meline, Inc.). Stephen Meline IV, Robert
Meline, and Frederick Rabo were all involved on behalf of Meline & Rabo Farms,
Inc. regarding such dispute. The dispute on behalf of Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc.
did not concern any issues in this litigation. The dispute concerned a claim that
Dick Meline had wasted corporate assets by entering into contracts on behalf of the
corporation with his son Randy Meline (through his corporation R.C. Meline, Inc.)
at below market rates and a claim that Dick Meline had inappropriately withdrawn
$180,000 from the Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. bank account.
N
2
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL
Declaration of Alan E. Burchett sets forth facts that further establish that the
The attached
Law Firm never represented Stephen Meline IV or Robert Meline concerning partition issues:
4. I have never been involved in any communications with Stephen
Meline IV or Robert]. Meline concerning their personal individual involvement
in real estate partition dispute. I have never given any advice to Stephen
-
any
Meline IV or Robert J. Meline concerning their personal interests in any real
estate dispute. There can be no doubt on this issue. The relationship
partition
between the law rm and its corporate client Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. involved
with ofcers and directors. I would not ever represent a corporation and
meeting
at the same time, represent a shareholder, director or ofcer of a corporate client
in their individual capacity concerning any dispute or conict involving another
shareholder, director or ofcer of the corporate client.
5. I have never been involved in any communications with Stephen
Meline IV or Robert J. Meline concerning Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc.’s
p—t
involvement in any real estate partition dispute, except that I received a copy of
the Complaint for Partition and have received copies of correspondence from time
y—n'r—t
3075 COHASSEr ROAD. SUITE l, CHICO, CA 95973
to time, but the law ofces of Stewart, Humpherys, Burchett & Molin, LLP has
(530) 343-5090 / (S30) 343-5091 (FAX)
not advised any party nor appeared in said litigation on behalf of any party.
with L. Sandelman
RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN
6. I did not discuss Raymond anything concerning
p—s
J.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Stephen Meline IV’s or Robert Meline’s concerns, desires, thoughts, or goals
in any real estate partition dispute.
p—A
concerning their personal interests
1—-
These declarations are admissible under the holding of Jessen v. Harord Cas. Ins. Co.
v—t
111 Cal.App.4th 698, 710 to show that the attorney—client relationship between the Law
r—t
(2003)
Firm and Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. isat the most peripheral or attenuated to the partition action
H
before the Court and that no condential information material to the current litigation was
1—-
V
acquired by the lawyers.
N
The next two sections of this Brief discuss Mr. Meline’s vague claims that he was a client
N
who disclosed condential information.
3. The Additional Documentary Evidence Offered By Stephen
N
Meline IV Does Not Show Any Legal Services Performed
By The Law Firm Concerning The Issue Of Partition.
N
The exhibits to Mr. Meline’s supplemental declaration do not show that legal services were
N
performed by the Law Firm concerning the issue of partition.
3
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL
(a) Exhibit 1 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV shows that the property
owners had a conict the division of properties and corporate assets in June of 2000.
regarding
Carter, counsel for Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline was communicating
Jeffrey
with Mr. and Mrs. Jack Meline, Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Meline, as well as Mr. and Mrs.
directly
Fred Rabo in interest to Ron Rabo, Michael Rabo, Frederick Rabo, Mary Rabo
(predecessors
Schweiger, and Sue Miller). Mr. Carter did not communicate with the Law Firm as counsel for
anyone regarding the issue of partition.
(b) Exhibit 2 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV contains a
recommendation that an appointment be made with Raymond Sandelrnan to tie him to the
There mention of any future consultation with the Law Firm to discuss Robert
O
no
p—A
corporation. is
Meline or Stephen Meline IV’s personal or liabilities in a partition action.
)—|
3—:
rights,
95973
Exhibit Declaration of Stephen Meline IV shows that the
(530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX)
H
N
3 to the meeting
3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE l, CHICO, CA
(c) Supplemental
RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN
L. Sandelman discussed examination of dissolution of the
r—a
with documents,
U)
Raymond corporate
ATTORNEY AT LAW
lawsuit Meline for reimbursement. There is no mention of
A
p—I
corporation, a potential against Randy
discussion with the Law Firm Robert Meline or Meline IV’s
til
any regarding Stephen personal
O\
in a partition action.
v—l
rights, or liabilities
Exhibit Declaration of Meline IV shows that
v—l
(d) 4 to the Supplemental Stephen Jeffrey
for Edward Richard Meline Charlene Meline was with
OO
v—t
Carter, counsel and communicating directly
Mr. Mrs. Jack Meline Mr. Mrs. Meline well as Mrs. Fred Rabo
\D
as
r—I
and and and Stephen
Ron Rabo, Michael Frederick Rabo and
N
O
(predecessor in interest to Rabo, Rabo, Mary Schweiger,
He communicate with Law Firm counsel for the
N
*—‘
Sue Miller). did not the as anyone regarding
of partition.
N
N
issue
Exhibit Declaration of Meline IV shows that W. Z.
N
the
DJ
(e) 5 to Supplemental Stephen
Brown from law of Price, Brown & was Rabo in
N
$
Jefferson the rm Halsey representing Dorothy
of the Mr. Brown did not communicate with the Law
N
LII
connection with the partition real property.
issue of partition.
O\
Firm as
N
counsel for anyone regarding the
g
.\\\
N
OO
\\\
4
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL
(t) Exhibit 6 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV shows that the Law
Firm prepared a proxy form for Violet Meline to sign. There is no mention of any legal services
regarding the issue of partition.
(g) Pages l through 9 of Exhibit 7 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV
are billing records from the Law Firm. There is not a single entry that mentions or refers to the
issue of partition. The rst charge for legal services was incurred on August 10, 2000. Stephen
Meline IV admits at Page 3 of his supplemental declaration that Nick Rabo (Frederick Rabo) was
elected a director of the corporation on August 11, 2000.
(h) Pages 11 through 15 of Exhibit 7 are billing records from the law rm of Stewart,
Humpherys, Burchett and Molin. There is not a single entry that mentions or refers to the issue of
These records all concern services after L. Sandelman left the Law
95973
partition. legal Raymond
bill of
(530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX)
Firm. 10 of Exhibit 7 is a from the law rm and
3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE l, CHICO, CA
Page Stewart, Humpherys, Burchett,
RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN
Molin (which is after Raymond L. Sandelman left the Law Firm). That bill includes a charge for
ATTORNEY AT LAW
a letter to all directors regarding the representation of the corporation in litigation. This is
presumably Exhibit 4 to the Moving Papers led on in which Mr. Burchett advises Stephen
Meline IV that the law rm of Stewart, Humpherys, Burchett, and Molin will not represent the
corporation in the litigation.
(i) Exhibit 8 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV is a letter from
Raymond L. Sandelman to Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. concerning a cancelled meeting. There is
no mention of any legal services regarding the issue of partition.
(j) Exhibit 9 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV is a facsimile cover
sheet from Nick Rabo to Alan E. Burchett. There is no mention of any legal services regarding the
issue of partition.
(j) Exhibit 10 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV is a letter from Steve
Meline to Ron Rabo concerning a claim that Dick Meline siphoned money from the coronation.
There is no mention of any legal services regarding the issue of partition.
\\\
\\\
5
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL
4. Stephen Meline IV’s Vague Claims
Concerning Advice Are Contradicted By Documentary
Evidence And The Declaration Of Alan E. Burchett
Mr. Meline’s supplemental declaration contains a lot of bulk, but no substance supporting
his claim that the Law Firm represented him concerning the issue of partition.
(a) At Page 4 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV Mr. Meline states:
. . . The other was in the context of dissolution of the Corporation and
partition of land complicated by the fact of Corporation-owned improvements and
that one parcel was no owned in equal undivided interest but had signicant
Corporation—owned improvements. Neither partition or dissolution of the
Corporation could be accomplished without nding a way to deal with these and
other disputes between the family branches. The law rm had provide advice
which helped us to prioritize our approach to these issues.
95973
It like Mr. Meline is that the Law Firm rendered advice to him
(530) 343—5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX)
sounds claiming legal
3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE 1, CHICO, CA
RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN
personally to prioritize issues regarding partition. There are no billings for legal services to him
ATTORNEY AT LAW
or the corporation regarding prioritization of issues regarding partition. There are no documents
showing that the Law Firm ever discussed partition other than the exhibits showing that Stewart,
Humpherys, Burchett & Molin declined to represent the corporation in the partition action (which
was led after Raymond L. Sandelman left the Law Firm). No clue is offered by Mr. Meline as
to the advice of prioritizing issues that involved condential information from Stephen Meline IV
and/or Robert Meline that these gentlemen supposedly conveyed to the Law Firm with the
expectation that it would not be shared with Nick Rabo. Stephen Meline IV and Robert J. Meline
have the burden of showing that an attorney-client relationship existed between them and the Law
Firm regarding their rights as owners of land that is to be partitioned (See K00 v.. Rubio’s
Restaurants, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 719, 729). The best that they can do is to make a
vague claim that they received non specic advice as to prioritize issues. It has no weight given
the clear and specic declarations of Raymond L. Sandelman and Alan E. Burchett and the
documentary evidence.
(b) At Page 5 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states:
After our rst joint meeting in August 2000, the law rm in the person of
6
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL
had services as occasionally requested by one or the
Mr. Burchett provided legal
other of us. The Corporation was billed and paid for these.
like Mr. Meline is claiming that the Law Firm rendered legal advice to Stephen
It sounds
billed the Mr. Meline cannot point to any of
Meline IV and/or Robert Meline, but corporation.
the specic in the Exhibit 7 bills that would support his claim.
charges I
At 5 of the Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states
(c) Page Supplemental
went to the 14, 2001 meeting to discuss litigation. It sounds like Mr. Meline is
that he August
that he went to the meeting to discuss litigation of a partition action with Nick Rabo and
claiming
his as adversaries. This is clearly not the case. The declarations of Raymond L.
siblings
Nick Rabo led with the Brief discuss the fact that the dispute on
Sandelman and Opposition
NNNNNNv—‘r—Ib—tr-ty—tr—Ip—tr—th-Ir—A
behalf of Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. concerned a claim that Dick Meline had wasted corporate
95973
into contracts on behalf of the with his son Randy Meline (through
(530) 343—5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX)
assets corporation
3075 COHASSET ROAD. SUITE l, CHICO, CA
by entering
Dick
RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN
his R.C. Meline, Inc.) at below market rates and a claim that Meline had
corporation
ATTORNEY AT LAW
inappropriately withdrawn $180,000 from the Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. bank account. Surely
Mr. Meline does not contend that he went to a meeting with Raymond L. Sandelman and Nick
Rabo to discuss matters concerning a partition action in Which Mr. Meline and Mr.
condential
Rabo would be adverse parties. Mr. Meline does not dispute the claim in the Opposition Brief that
Mr. Rabo was present at the meeting, nor does Mr. Meline’s counsel dispute the legal principle
that there can be no condential disclosure if Mr. Rabo was present (See Ver Bryck v. Luby (1945)
67 Cal.App.2d 842, 845).
At 6 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states
(d) Page
that he went to the August 14, 2001 meeting and that the bill for the August 14, 2001 meeting that
he and Mr. Rabo attended, states that there was a meeting with clients. Itsounds like Mr. Meline
that the letter “s” on a bill to the corporation shows that he was a client and therefore
is claiming
to recuse counsel. The fact that the meeting could not have involved a disclosure
it isappropriate
of condential information by him to Raymond L. Sandelman because Nick Rabo was present,
seems irrelevant to him. The of Mr. Rabo at the August 14, 2001 meeting establishes
presence
was no for information to be divulged. (See City Nat’l Bank v.
N
that there opportunity condential
7
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL
Adams (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 315, 327—328). The “s” on the bill has no weight concerning the
recusal motion.
(e) At Page 6 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states
that he thought that he was a client of the Law Firm. He does not explain what he thought the
Law Firm was doing for him as an individual that was separate from the services being performed
by the law rm for the corporation. He does not refer to any fee agreement naming him as a
client, or any fees he paid. Mr. Meline’s present counsel has not offered any analysis that would
distinguish the holding of K00 v. Rubio’s Restaurants, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 719, 729-731
in the Opposition Brief that an attorney-client relationship cannot be created by the unilateral
declaration of a party that thinks he is a client and that, notwithstanding an individual’s belief,
for do not represent stockholders or ofcers. No been cited in
95973
attorneys corporations authority has
(530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX)
the analysis on this issue in the Opposition Brief.
3075 COHASSEF ROAD. SUITE l, CHICO, CA
opposition to
RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN
(f) At Page 7 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states
ATTORNEY AT LAW
that Alan Burchett’s letter of March 20, 2002 conrmed his belief that a lawyer could not
represent one of the joint clients against the others without consent of the other clients. The letter
of Alan E. Burchett does not mention any “joint clients.” The letter states that Stewart,
Hurnpherys, Burchett & Molin will not represent the corporation because of the apparent conict
of interest among the shareholders. Mr. Meline is not the corporation. Mr. Meline may not
appreciate the fact that corporate counsel can not take part in controversies among shareholders
(See Woods v. Superior Court (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 931, 936), but Mr. Burchett did understand
that the issue concerned corporate counsel.
(g) At Page 7 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states
that the Corporation is now going to participate in he litigation along with each family branch.
Not only has there been no appearance on behalf of the corporation, there is no need for an
appearance because no cognizable claim is asserted against the corporation (See the discussion in
Section 6 of the Opposition Brief that Edward Meline cannot obtain an injunction of any kind to
bar the termination of his employment). Mr. Meline’s counsel offers no legal authority disputing
this analysis.
8
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL
(h) At Page 7 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states
that although he cannot remember what information he communicated to counsel, he knows that he
communicated it in condence. Mr. Meline does not explain how it is that he communicated
condential information concerning Nick Rabo in the presence of Nick Rabo or why counsel
should be recused because information he cannot recall and which the attorneys deny ever
receiving.
(j) At Page 8 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states that
Nick Rabo’s reference to the joint meeting on August 14, 2009 was inaccurate because the
meeting took place on August 14, 2001. Mr. Meline is right! Unfortunately for Mr. Meline, he
cannot articulate any substantive difference between an August 14, 2000 or August 14, 2001
date.
95973
meeting
(530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX)
At 9 of the Declaration of Meline IV, Mr. Meline
3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE 1, CHICO, CA
(k) Page Supplemental Stephen states
RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN
that he considered the letter of November 22, 2000 letter to be a condential communication to
ATTORNEY AT LAW
him. He does not explain why the letter was also sent to Nick Rabo and was included in support of
the recusal motion.The full text of the letter (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Fredrick Rabo in the
Opposition Brief) shows that the letter concerns a claim by the corporation against Dick and
Randy Meline. Stephen Meline and his current counsel misrepresented the substance of the letter
and submitted a redacted version of the letter to mislead the court as to its contents. The Moving
Papers claim at Page 4 that the letter evidences condential and privileged information concerning
rights and duties of the owners in common of the real property and advice as to formulation of
policy and strategy for the litigation. The test of the letter shows that Mr. Meline’s claim to be
untrue. The letter describes a conversation with Jeffrey Carter, counsel adverse to the corporation
(which is not condential) and does not discuss partition.
(1)At Page 9 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states that
the Corporation owns wells, irrigation systems, trees, building improvement, hullers and land
leveling. Mr. Meline fails to explain why this is relevant, and if relevant why he did not include
the corporation as a party in his cross complaint for indemnication.
NNNN
(In) At Page 9 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states
9
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL
that the until the between the family branches to the corporation can be resolved, the
disputes
cannot occur and the Corporation cannot be dissolved. No explanation is given for this
partition
claim. Mr. Meline fails to explain why if this is so there is no litigation initiated by him
concerning these issues.
5. Conclusion
The motion to disqualify counsel is totally devoid of any merit and should be denied.
Dated: {Tom 7,1004
Raymond L. Sandelman
Attorney for Ron ‘Rabo, Michael Rabo, Frederick
Mary Rabo and Sue Miller as
95973
Rabo, Schweiger,
successors in interest to the Fred and Dorothy
(530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX)
3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE 1, CHICO, CA
Rabo 1994 Irrevocable Trust dated 12/19/94
RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN
ATrORNEY AT LAW
10
SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL
Raymond L. Sandelman SBN 078020
Attorney at Law
3075 Cohasset Road, Suite 1
Chico, CA 95973—0970
(530) 343-5090
(530) 343-5091 (FAX)
Attorney for Ron Rabo, Michael Rabo, Frederick
Rabo, Mary Rabo Schweiger, and Sue Miller as
successors in interest to the Fred and Dorothy
Rabo 1994 Irrevocable Trust dated 12/19/94
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
EDWARD RICHARD MELINE et a1.,
I
No.: 127180
DECLARATION ALAN
'
Plaintiffs, OF E.
BURCHETT IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION
Preview
b) Raymond L. Sandelman SBN 078020 Attorney at Law Cyb‘nf‘b—U 3075 Cohasset Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95973 F2 Rh“ hm“ c M a -&' (530) 343—5090 343-5091 (FAX) §§E§__; (530) i? 3 3 W SQ 1‘: é I Attorney for Ron Rabo, Michael Rabo, Frederick Rabo, Mary Rabo Schweiger, and Sue Miller as as successors in interest to the Fred and Dorothy Rabo 1994 Irrevocable Trust dated 12/19/94 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR TI-E COUNTY OF BUTTE ' EDWARD RICHARD MELINE et al., No.: 127180 Plaintiffs, ’ SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL v. i Attached Document: Declaration of Alan E. Burchett JACK MELINE, et. al., Hearing Date: 6/24/04 Defendants. Hearing Time: 1:00 p.m. Judge: William Lamb Department: TBA Date of Complaint: 3/6/02 / Trial Date: None Set 1. Introduction lessen v. Hartford Cas. Ins. C0. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 698, 713 holds that although the rules concerning recusal do not a "bright line" standard, the trial court can apply the establish rules with "reason, logic and common sense." The two declarations by attorneys to be considered by the Court state that no information relevant to this partition action was condential communicated by Stephen Meline IV or Robert J. Meline to the law rm of Stewart, Humpherys, Burchett, Sandelman & Molin (hereafter the “Law Firm”) and that the Law Firm never 1 SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL Meline IV or Robert J. Meline regarding partition issues. The Opposition represented Stephen 2004 the Brief”) pointed out that there can be no Brief led April 16, (hereafter “Opposition an between the complaining party and the recusal absent a showing attorney—client relationship which the confidential information was imparted (See Maruman Integrated attorney during Circuits, Inc. v. Consortium C0. (1985) 166 Ca1.App.3d 443, 447). The declarations by Stephen Meline never address the critical issue of exactly what condential information relevant to this partition action he thinks that he disclosed to the Law Firm in the of his adversary Nick (Frederick) Rabo or otherwise. The presence of Mr. presence Rabo at the 14, 2001 meeting establishes that there was no opportunity for condential August information to be (See City Nat’l Bank v. Adams (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 315, 327-328 divulged and Ver Bryck v. Luby (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 842, 845). 95973 The and common sense all‘show that there was no (530) 343-5090 / (530) 343—5091 (FAX) declarations, exhibits, reason, logic 3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE 1, CHICO, CA J RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN between Stephen Meline IV and/or Robert .Meline and the Law Firm attorney-client relationship A'ITORNEY AT LAw and that the Law Firm never received any condential information from Stephen Meline IV and/or Robert J. Meline regarding the partition issues involved in this litigation. 2. The Declaration Of Alan E. Burchett Sets Forth Facts That Show That N0 Confidential Information Relevant To The Partition Action Was Received By The Law Firm The Declaration of Raymond L. Sandelman led with the Opposition Brief stated in part that: I am aware that the law rm formerly known as Stewart, Humpherys, Burchett, Sandelman & Molin represented Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. concerning a dispute with Edward Richard Meline (known as Dick Meline) and his son Randy Meline (through his corporation R.C. Meline, Inc.). Stephen Meline IV, Robert Meline, and Frederick Rabo were all involved on behalf of Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. regarding such dispute. The dispute on behalf of Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. did not concern any issues in this litigation. The dispute concerned a claim that Dick Meline had wasted corporate assets by entering into contracts on behalf of the corporation with his son Randy Meline (through his corporation R.C. Meline, Inc.) at below market rates and a claim that Dick Meline had inappropriately withdrawn $180,000 from the Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. bank account. N 2 SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL Declaration of Alan E. Burchett sets forth facts that further establish that the The attached Law Firm never represented Stephen Meline IV or Robert Meline concerning partition issues: 4. I have never been involved in any communications with Stephen Meline IV or Robert]. Meline concerning their personal individual involvement in real estate partition dispute. I have never given any advice to Stephen - any Meline IV or Robert J. Meline concerning their personal interests in any real estate dispute. There can be no doubt on this issue. The relationship partition between the law rm and its corporate client Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. involved with ofcers and directors. I would not ever represent a corporation and meeting at the same time, represent a shareholder, director or ofcer of a corporate client in their individual capacity concerning any dispute or conict involving another shareholder, director or ofcer of the corporate client. 5. I have never been involved in any communications with Stephen Meline IV or Robert J. Meline concerning Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc.’s p—t involvement in any real estate partition dispute, except that I received a copy of the Complaint for Partition and have received copies of correspondence from time y—n'r—t 3075 COHASSEr ROAD. SUITE l, CHICO, CA 95973 to time, but the law ofces of Stewart, Humpherys, Burchett & Molin, LLP has (530) 343-5090 / (S30) 343-5091 (FAX) not advised any party nor appeared in said litigation on behalf of any party. with L. Sandelman RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN 6. I did not discuss Raymond anything concerning p—s J. ATTORNEY AT LAW Stephen Meline IV’s or Robert Meline’s concerns, desires, thoughts, or goals in any real estate partition dispute. p—A concerning their personal interests 1—- These declarations are admissible under the holding of Jessen v. Harord Cas. Ins. Co. v—t 111 Cal.App.4th 698, 710 to show that the attorney—client relationship between the Law r—t (2003) Firm and Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. isat the most peripheral or attenuated to the partition action H before the Court and that no condential information material to the current litigation was 1—- V acquired by the lawyers. N The next two sections of this Brief discuss Mr. Meline’s vague claims that he was a client N who disclosed condential information. 3. The Additional Documentary Evidence Offered By Stephen N Meline IV Does Not Show Any Legal Services Performed By The Law Firm Concerning The Issue Of Partition. N The exhibits to Mr. Meline’s supplemental declaration do not show that legal services were N performed by the Law Firm concerning the issue of partition. 3 SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL (a) Exhibit 1 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV shows that the property owners had a conict the division of properties and corporate assets in June of 2000. regarding Carter, counsel for Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline was communicating Jeffrey with Mr. and Mrs. Jack Meline, Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Meline, as well as Mr. and Mrs. directly Fred Rabo in interest to Ron Rabo, Michael Rabo, Frederick Rabo, Mary Rabo (predecessors Schweiger, and Sue Miller). Mr. Carter did not communicate with the Law Firm as counsel for anyone regarding the issue of partition. (b) Exhibit 2 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV contains a recommendation that an appointment be made with Raymond Sandelrnan to tie him to the There mention of any future consultation with the Law Firm to discuss Robert O no p—A corporation. is Meline or Stephen Meline IV’s personal or liabilities in a partition action. )—| 3—: rights, 95973 Exhibit Declaration of Stephen Meline IV shows that the (530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX) H N 3 to the meeting 3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE l, CHICO, CA (c) Supplemental RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN L. Sandelman discussed examination of dissolution of the r—a with documents, U) Raymond corporate ATTORNEY AT LAW lawsuit Meline for reimbursement. There is no mention of A p—I corporation, a potential against Randy discussion with the Law Firm Robert Meline or Meline IV’s til any regarding Stephen personal O\ in a partition action. v—l rights, or liabilities Exhibit Declaration of Meline IV shows that v—l (d) 4 to the Supplemental Stephen Jeffrey for Edward Richard Meline Charlene Meline was with OO v—t Carter, counsel and communicating directly Mr. Mrs. Jack Meline Mr. Mrs. Meline well as Mrs. Fred Rabo \D as r—I and and and Stephen Ron Rabo, Michael Frederick Rabo and N O (predecessor in interest to Rabo, Rabo, Mary Schweiger, He communicate with Law Firm counsel for the N *—‘ Sue Miller). did not the as anyone regarding of partition. N N issue Exhibit Declaration of Meline IV shows that W. Z. N the DJ (e) 5 to Supplemental Stephen Brown from law of Price, Brown & was Rabo in N $ Jefferson the rm Halsey representing Dorothy of the Mr. Brown did not communicate with the Law N LII connection with the partition real property. issue of partition. O\ Firm as N counsel for anyone regarding the g .\\\ N OO \\\ 4 SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL (t) Exhibit 6 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV shows that the Law Firm prepared a proxy form for Violet Meline to sign. There is no mention of any legal services regarding the issue of partition. (g) Pages l through 9 of Exhibit 7 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV are billing records from the Law Firm. There is not a single entry that mentions or refers to the issue of partition. The rst charge for legal services was incurred on August 10, 2000. Stephen Meline IV admits at Page 3 of his supplemental declaration that Nick Rabo (Frederick Rabo) was elected a director of the corporation on August 11, 2000. (h) Pages 11 through 15 of Exhibit 7 are billing records from the law rm of Stewart, Humpherys, Burchett and Molin. There is not a single entry that mentions or refers to the issue of These records all concern services after L. Sandelman left the Law 95973 partition. legal Raymond bill of (530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX) Firm. 10 of Exhibit 7 is a from the law rm and 3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE l, CHICO, CA Page Stewart, Humpherys, Burchett, RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN Molin (which is after Raymond L. Sandelman left the Law Firm). That bill includes a charge for ATTORNEY AT LAW a letter to all directors regarding the representation of the corporation in litigation. This is presumably Exhibit 4 to the Moving Papers led on in which Mr. Burchett advises Stephen Meline IV that the law rm of Stewart, Humpherys, Burchett, and Molin will not represent the corporation in the litigation. (i) Exhibit 8 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV is a letter from Raymond L. Sandelman to Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. concerning a cancelled meeting. There is no mention of any legal services regarding the issue of partition. (j) Exhibit 9 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV is a facsimile cover sheet from Nick Rabo to Alan E. Burchett. There is no mention of any legal services regarding the issue of partition. (j) Exhibit 10 to the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV is a letter from Steve Meline to Ron Rabo concerning a claim that Dick Meline siphoned money from the coronation. There is no mention of any legal services regarding the issue of partition. \\\ \\\ 5 SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL 4. Stephen Meline IV’s Vague Claims Concerning Advice Are Contradicted By Documentary Evidence And The Declaration Of Alan E. Burchett Mr. Meline’s supplemental declaration contains a lot of bulk, but no substance supporting his claim that the Law Firm represented him concerning the issue of partition. (a) At Page 4 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV Mr. Meline states: . . . The other was in the context of dissolution of the Corporation and partition of land complicated by the fact of Corporation-owned improvements and that one parcel was no owned in equal undivided interest but had signicant Corporation—owned improvements. Neither partition or dissolution of the Corporation could be accomplished without nding a way to deal with these and other disputes between the family branches. The law rm had provide advice which helped us to prioritize our approach to these issues. 95973 It like Mr. Meline is that the Law Firm rendered advice to him (530) 343—5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX) sounds claiming legal 3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE 1, CHICO, CA RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN personally to prioritize issues regarding partition. There are no billings for legal services to him ATTORNEY AT LAW or the corporation regarding prioritization of issues regarding partition. There are no documents showing that the Law Firm ever discussed partition other than the exhibits showing that Stewart, Humpherys, Burchett & Molin declined to represent the corporation in the partition action (which was led after Raymond L. Sandelman left the Law Firm). No clue is offered by Mr. Meline as to the advice of prioritizing issues that involved condential information from Stephen Meline IV and/or Robert Meline that these gentlemen supposedly conveyed to the Law Firm with the expectation that it would not be shared with Nick Rabo. Stephen Meline IV and Robert J. Meline have the burden of showing that an attorney-client relationship existed between them and the Law Firm regarding their rights as owners of land that is to be partitioned (See K00 v.. Rubio’s Restaurants, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 719, 729). The best that they can do is to make a vague claim that they received non specic advice as to prioritize issues. It has no weight given the clear and specic declarations of Raymond L. Sandelman and Alan E. Burchett and the documentary evidence. (b) At Page 5 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states: After our rst joint meeting in August 2000, the law rm in the person of 6 SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL had services as occasionally requested by one or the Mr. Burchett provided legal other of us. The Corporation was billed and paid for these. like Mr. Meline is claiming that the Law Firm rendered legal advice to Stephen It sounds billed the Mr. Meline cannot point to any of Meline IV and/or Robert Meline, but corporation. the specic in the Exhibit 7 bills that would support his claim. charges I At 5 of the Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states (c) Page Supplemental went to the 14, 2001 meeting to discuss litigation. It sounds like Mr. Meline is that he August that he went to the meeting to discuss litigation of a partition action with Nick Rabo and claiming his as adversaries. This is clearly not the case. The declarations of Raymond L. siblings Nick Rabo led with the Brief discuss the fact that the dispute on Sandelman and Opposition NNNNNNv—‘r—Ib—tr-ty—tr—Ip—tr—th-Ir—A behalf of Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. concerned a claim that Dick Meline had wasted corporate 95973 into contracts on behalf of the with his son Randy Meline (through (530) 343—5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX) assets corporation 3075 COHASSET ROAD. SUITE l, CHICO, CA by entering Dick RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN his R.C. Meline, Inc.) at below market rates and a claim that Meline had corporation ATTORNEY AT LAW inappropriately withdrawn $180,000 from the Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. bank account. Surely Mr. Meline does not contend that he went to a meeting with Raymond L. Sandelman and Nick Rabo to discuss matters concerning a partition action in Which Mr. Meline and Mr. condential Rabo would be adverse parties. Mr. Meline does not dispute the claim in the Opposition Brief that Mr. Rabo was present at the meeting, nor does Mr. Meline’s counsel dispute the legal principle that there can be no condential disclosure if Mr. Rabo was present (See Ver Bryck v. Luby (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 842, 845). At 6 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states (d) Page that he went to the August 14, 2001 meeting and that the bill for the August 14, 2001 meeting that he and Mr. Rabo attended, states that there was a meeting with clients. Itsounds like Mr. Meline that the letter “s” on a bill to the corporation shows that he was a client and therefore is claiming to recuse counsel. The fact that the meeting could not have involved a disclosure it isappropriate of condential information by him to Raymond L. Sandelman because Nick Rabo was present, seems irrelevant to him. The of Mr. Rabo at the August 14, 2001 meeting establishes presence was no for information to be divulged. (See City Nat’l Bank v. N that there opportunity condential 7 SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL Adams (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 315, 327—328). The “s” on the bill has no weight concerning the recusal motion. (e) At Page 6 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states that he thought that he was a client of the Law Firm. He does not explain what he thought the Law Firm was doing for him as an individual that was separate from the services being performed by the law rm for the corporation. He does not refer to any fee agreement naming him as a client, or any fees he paid. Mr. Meline’s present counsel has not offered any analysis that would distinguish the holding of K00 v. Rubio’s Restaurants, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 719, 729-731 in the Opposition Brief that an attorney-client relationship cannot be created by the unilateral declaration of a party that thinks he is a client and that, notwithstanding an individual’s belief, for do not represent stockholders or ofcers. No been cited in 95973 attorneys corporations authority has (530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX) the analysis on this issue in the Opposition Brief. 3075 COHASSEF ROAD. SUITE l, CHICO, CA opposition to RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN (f) At Page 7 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states ATTORNEY AT LAW that Alan Burchett’s letter of March 20, 2002 conrmed his belief that a lawyer could not represent one of the joint clients against the others without consent of the other clients. The letter of Alan E. Burchett does not mention any “joint clients.” The letter states that Stewart, Hurnpherys, Burchett & Molin will not represent the corporation because of the apparent conict of interest among the shareholders. Mr. Meline is not the corporation. Mr. Meline may not appreciate the fact that corporate counsel can not take part in controversies among shareholders (See Woods v. Superior Court (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 931, 936), but Mr. Burchett did understand that the issue concerned corporate counsel. (g) At Page 7 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states that the Corporation is now going to participate in he litigation along with each family branch. Not only has there been no appearance on behalf of the corporation, there is no need for an appearance because no cognizable claim is asserted against the corporation (See the discussion in Section 6 of the Opposition Brief that Edward Meline cannot obtain an injunction of any kind to bar the termination of his employment). Mr. Meline’s counsel offers no legal authority disputing this analysis. 8 SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL (h) At Page 7 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states that although he cannot remember what information he communicated to counsel, he knows that he communicated it in condence. Mr. Meline does not explain how it is that he communicated condential information concerning Nick Rabo in the presence of Nick Rabo or why counsel should be recused because information he cannot recall and which the attorneys deny ever receiving. (j) At Page 8 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states that Nick Rabo’s reference to the joint meeting on August 14, 2009 was inaccurate because the meeting took place on August 14, 2001. Mr. Meline is right! Unfortunately for Mr. Meline, he cannot articulate any substantive difference between an August 14, 2000 or August 14, 2001 date. 95973 meeting (530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX) At 9 of the Declaration of Meline IV, Mr. Meline 3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE 1, CHICO, CA (k) Page Supplemental Stephen states RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN that he considered the letter of November 22, 2000 letter to be a condential communication to ATTORNEY AT LAW him. He does not explain why the letter was also sent to Nick Rabo and was included in support of the recusal motion.The full text of the letter (Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Fredrick Rabo in the Opposition Brief) shows that the letter concerns a claim by the corporation against Dick and Randy Meline. Stephen Meline and his current counsel misrepresented the substance of the letter and submitted a redacted version of the letter to mislead the court as to its contents. The Moving Papers claim at Page 4 that the letter evidences condential and privileged information concerning rights and duties of the owners in common of the real property and advice as to formulation of policy and strategy for the litigation. The test of the letter shows that Mr. Meline’s claim to be untrue. The letter describes a conversation with Jeffrey Carter, counsel adverse to the corporation (which is not condential) and does not discuss partition. (1)At Page 9 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states that the Corporation owns wells, irrigation systems, trees, building improvement, hullers and land leveling. Mr. Meline fails to explain why this is relevant, and if relevant why he did not include the corporation as a party in his cross complaint for indemnication. NNNN (In) At Page 9 of the Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Meline IV, Mr. Meline states 9 SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL that the until the between the family branches to the corporation can be resolved, the disputes cannot occur and the Corporation cannot be dissolved. No explanation is given for this partition claim. Mr. Meline fails to explain why if this is so there is no litigation initiated by him concerning these issues. 5. Conclusion The motion to disqualify counsel is totally devoid of any merit and should be denied. Dated: {Tom 7,1004 Raymond L. Sandelman Attorney for Ron ‘Rabo, Michael Rabo, Frederick Mary Rabo and Sue Miller as 95973 Rabo, Schweiger, successors in interest to the Fred and Dorothy (530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX) 3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE 1, CHICO, CA Rabo 1994 Irrevocable Trust dated 12/19/94 RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN ATrORNEY AT LAW 10 SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL Raymond L. Sandelman SBN 078020 Attorney at Law 3075 Cohasset Road, Suite 1 Chico, CA 95973—0970 (530) 343-5090 (530) 343-5091 (FAX) Attorney for Ron Rabo, Michael Rabo, Frederick Rabo, Mary Rabo Schweiger, and Sue Miller as successors in interest to the Fred and Dorothy Rabo 1994 Irrevocable Trust dated 12/19/94 SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE EDWARD RICHARD MELINE et a1., I No.: 127180 DECLARATION ALAN ' Plaintiffs, OF E. BURCHETT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION