On March 06, 2002 a
Motion-Secondary
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
u.»
Raymond L. Sandelman SBN 078020
Attorney at Law F
3075 Cohasset Road, Suite 1
F UPGHOT 0“
E
Chico, CA 95973
L gi-
(530) 343-5090
E SEP 1 7 200‘“ E
(530) 343-5091 (FAX) D share! Strickla gs D
Attorney for Ron Rabo, Michael Rabo, Frederick
By _7%:Deputy
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 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
H
EDWARD RICHARD MELINE et al., No.2 127180
)—I
Plaintiffs, OBJECTION TO MATERIALS FILED
BY
y—a
STEPHEN MELINE AND ROBERT
MELINE 83 DAYS AFTER THE
y—I
RECUSAL MOTION HAS BEEN
v. SUBMITTED FOR DECISION
r—t
v—a
JACK MELINE, et. a1., Hearing Date: 6/24/04
Hearing Time: 1:00 p.m.
r—t
Defendants. Judge: William Lamb
'
Department: TBA
Date of Complaint: 3/6/02
Trial Date: None Set
/
r—I
The
N
recusal motion was submitted on June 24, 2004 based upon briefs and arguments. 83
Meline Robert
N
days latter, Stephen and Meline have attempted to le new papers. This is most
The
N
improper. matter has been submitted after two hearings. Counsel for Edward Meline has
already submitted materials to the Court after the motion was submitted. An objection to that
submission was led on July 7, 2004 pointing out that the June 10, 2004 version of City and
County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc. (2004), 2004 DJDAR 6962, cited by counsel
Stephen Meline IV and RobertJ. Meline, was modied on June 15, 2004 (2004 WL 1278036) and
that the holding was not nal. The California Supreme Court granted review (2004 WL 2035430)
on August 25, 2004, rendering the winded argument of Counsel for moving parties at the April 22,
1
OBJECTION TO MATERIALS FILED BY STEPHEN MELINE AND ROBERT MELINE 83 DAYS
AFTER THE RECUSAL MOTION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR DECISION
2004 hearing improper argument (See California Rules of Court Rule 977). Counsel for the moving
parities has not deemed itappropriate to advise the Court that his legal authority could not be cited
and should not be considered.
Now counsel for Edward Meline wants to offer new evidence for the Court to consider
subsequent to submission without any due process right of counsel to respond. VThe evidence
proffered is a statement by Stephen Meline attempting to authenticate a statement by Edward
Meline, the corporate secretary. Edward Meline is one of the plaintiffs that sued Meline & Rabo
Farms, Inc. He does not disclose whether Ia quorum was present, or the vote count, or the fact
that he, a person with a conict of interest voted on the resolution. The fact that Edward Meline
sued the corporation and voted for the attorney who isto represent the corporation in the litigation
is conict of interest that is hard to that the context involves an to recuse
95973
a ignore given attempt
of interest.
(530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX)
counsel for a conict
3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE 1, CHICO, CA
RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN
The resolution indicates that the corporation is to join in the motion of recusal, but there
ATTORNEY AT LAW
has been no joinder and there cannot be a joinder in a motion after ithas been submitted. A party
may not join another party's motion by simply ling a “notice of joinder” instead of separate
moving papers (See Village Nurseries, L.P. v. Greenbaum (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 26, 46-47).
The corporation has been sued only on a claim for an injunction to bar it from terminating
the employment of Edward Meline. Edward Meline cannot get an injunction of any kind to bar
the termination of his employment. An injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of a
contract, the performance of which would not be specically enforced. (See Ihayer Plymouth
Center, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.(1967) 255 Ca1.App.2d 300, 304). Money damages are
awardable for breach of a personal services contract. But courts cannot order specic performance
NNNN
of such contracts (See Bamdt v. County ofLos Angeles (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 397, 403-404).
///
///
///
///
///
2
OBJECTION TO MATERIALS FILED BY STEPHEN MELINE AND ROBERT MELINE 83 DAYS
AFTER THE RECUSAL MOTION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR DECISION
The corporation is not an adverse party to 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, and therefore the corporation cannot articulate any basis
by which it perceives a conict of interest.
Dated: .3 denim 17,1924
Raymond L. Sandehnan
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
95973
(530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX)
3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE l, CHICO, CA
RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN
ATTORNbY AT LAW
3
OBJECTION TO MATERIALS FILED BY STEPHEN MELINE AND ROBERT MELINE 83 DAYS
AFTER THE RECUSAL MOTION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR DECISION
"CI
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I, Jennifer Melchior, declare:
1. I am a resident of and employed in the County of Butte, State of California. I am, and
was at the time of the service hereinafter mentioned, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the
above-entitled cause.
2. On June 7, 2004 I served the within Objection To Materials Filed By Stephen Meline
And Robert Meline 83 Days After The Recusal Motion Has Been Submitted For Decision, on the
parties by placing for collection and deposit in the United States mail, a true copy thereof enclosed
in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, at the law ofce of Raymond L. Sandelman
3075 Cohasset Road, Suite l, Chico, Butte County, California, addressed as follows:
Nels A. Christensen John Jeffery Carter
Christensen & Schwarz John Jeffrey Carter Law Ofce
1 Governors Lane P.O. Box 3606
Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA 95927-3606
William A. Ward James Berglund
Attorney at Law _ Attorney at Law
9 Williamsburg Lane 1639 Bird Street
Chico, CA 95926 Oroville, CA 95965
At that time there was regular delivery of United States mail between the place of deposit
and place of address.
3. I am familiar with the practice of the law ofce of Raymond L. Sandelman for the
collection and the processing of correspondence or mailing with the United States Postal Service.
In accordance with the ordinary course of business, the above-mentioned document would have
been deposited with the United States Postal Service on June 7, 2004 the same day on which itwas
placed at the law ofce of Raymond L. Sandelman for deposit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
NN
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: September l7 ,2004 KU\\ WWW
)mtltjQw
Jennifer} Melchior
\\lawI \work\clz'ent directories\rab0 11 62\0bjecti0n 91 7.d0c
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
u.» Raymond L. Sandelman SBN 078020 Attorney at Law F 3075 Cohasset Road, Suite 1 F UPGHOT 0“ E Chico, CA 95973 L gi- (530) 343-5090 E SEP 1 7 200‘“ E (530) 343-5091 (FAX) D share! Strickla gs D Attorney for Ron Rabo, Michael Rabo, Frederick By _7%:Deputy 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 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE H EDWARD RICHARD MELINE et al., No.2 127180 )—I Plaintiffs, OBJECTION TO MATERIALS FILED BY y—a STEPHEN MELINE AND ROBERT MELINE 83 DAYS AFTER THE y—I RECUSAL MOTION HAS BEEN v. SUBMITTED FOR DECISION r—t v—a JACK MELINE, et. a1., Hearing Date: 6/24/04 Hearing Time: 1:00 p.m. r—t Defendants. Judge: William Lamb ' Department: TBA Date of Complaint: 3/6/02 Trial Date: None Set / r—I The N recusal motion was submitted on June 24, 2004 based upon briefs and arguments. 83 Meline Robert N days latter, Stephen and Meline have attempted to le new papers. This is most The N improper. matter has been submitted after two hearings. Counsel for Edward Meline has already submitted materials to the Court after the motion was submitted. An objection to that submission was led on July 7, 2004 pointing out that the June 10, 2004 version of City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc. (2004), 2004 DJDAR 6962, cited by counsel Stephen Meline IV and RobertJ. Meline, was modied on June 15, 2004 (2004 WL 1278036) and that the holding was not nal. The California Supreme Court granted review (2004 WL 2035430) on August 25, 2004, rendering the winded argument of Counsel for moving parties at the April 22, 1 OBJECTION TO MATERIALS FILED BY STEPHEN MELINE AND ROBERT MELINE 83 DAYS AFTER THE RECUSAL MOTION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR DECISION 2004 hearing improper argument (See California Rules of Court Rule 977). Counsel for the moving parities has not deemed itappropriate to advise the Court that his legal authority could not be cited and should not be considered. Now counsel for Edward Meline wants to offer new evidence for the Court to consider subsequent to submission without any due process right of counsel to respond. VThe evidence proffered is a statement by Stephen Meline attempting to authenticate a statement by Edward Meline, the corporate secretary. Edward Meline is one of the plaintiffs that sued Meline & Rabo Farms, Inc. He does not disclose whether Ia quorum was present, or the vote count, or the fact that he, a person with a conict of interest voted on the resolution. The fact that Edward Meline sued the corporation and voted for the attorney who isto represent the corporation in the litigation is conict of interest that is hard to that the context involves an to recuse 95973 a ignore given attempt of interest. (530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX) counsel for a conict 3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE 1, CHICO, CA RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN The resolution indicates that the corporation is to join in the motion of recusal, but there ATTORNEY AT LAW has been no joinder and there cannot be a joinder in a motion after ithas been submitted. A party may not join another party's motion by simply ling a “notice of joinder” instead of separate moving papers (See Village Nurseries, L.P. v. Greenbaum (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 26, 46-47). The corporation has been sued only on a claim for an injunction to bar it from terminating the employment of Edward Meline. Edward Meline cannot get an injunction of any kind to bar the termination of his employment. An injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of a contract, the performance of which would not be specically enforced. (See Ihayer Plymouth Center, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.(1967) 255 Ca1.App.2d 300, 304). Money damages are awardable for breach of a personal services contract. But courts cannot order specic performance NNNN of such contracts (See Bamdt v. County ofLos Angeles (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 397, 403-404). /// /// /// /// /// 2 OBJECTION TO MATERIALS FILED BY STEPHEN MELINE AND ROBERT MELINE 83 DAYS AFTER THE RECUSAL MOTION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR DECISION The corporation is not an adverse party to 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, and therefore the corporation cannot articulate any basis by which it perceives a conict of interest. Dated: .3 denim 17,1924 Raymond L. Sandehnan 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 95973 (530) 343-5090 / (530) 343-5091 (FAX) 3075 COHASSET ROAD, SUITE l, CHICO, CA RAYMOND L. SANDELMAN ATTORNbY AT LAW 3 OBJECTION TO MATERIALS FILED BY STEPHEN MELINE AND ROBERT MELINE 83 DAYS AFTER THE RECUSAL MOTION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR DECISION "CI PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, Jennifer Melchior, declare: 1. I am a resident of and employed in the County of Butte, State of California. I am, and was at the time of the service hereinafter mentioned, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above-entitled cause. 2. On June 7, 2004 I served the within Objection To Materials Filed By Stephen Meline And Robert Meline 83 Days After The Recusal Motion Has Been Submitted For Decision, on the parties by placing for collection and deposit in the United States mail, a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, at the law ofce of Raymond L. Sandelman 3075 Cohasset Road, Suite l, Chico, Butte County, California, addressed as follows: Nels A. Christensen John Jeffery Carter Christensen & Schwarz John Jeffrey Carter Law Ofce 1 Governors Lane P.O. Box 3606 Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA 95927-3606 William A. Ward James Berglund Attorney at Law _ Attorney at Law 9 Williamsburg Lane 1639 Bird Street Chico, CA 95926 Oroville, CA 95965 At that time there was regular delivery of United States mail between the place of deposit and place of address. 3. I am familiar with the practice of the law ofce of Raymond L. Sandelman for the collection and the processing of correspondence or mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with the ordinary course of business, the above-mentioned document would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service on June 7, 2004 the same day on which itwas placed at the law ofce of Raymond L. Sandelman for deposit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the NN foregoing is true and correct. Dated: September l7 ,2004 KU\\ WWW )mtltjQw Jennifer} Melchior \\lawI \work\clz'ent directories\rab0 11 62\0bjecti0n 91 7.d0c PROOF OF SERVICE