Preview
ey
CM-110
ev ORE ARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY, (Ne von ‘and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
ety Carer Bar HOTS:
Lose ER AW OFFI
329 Flume Street, P. ot Box 3606, Chico, CA 95927-3606 Za
TELEPHONE NO. °(530) 3 42-6196 FaxNo. ntone9: (530) 342-6195
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE i ee
street aopress: 655 eander Avenue
maine aooress: Same As Above PR 28 2005
cry ano zip cove: Chico, CA 95926
arancH name: Chico Courthouse Clerk D
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline, et al. Deputy
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al
FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NUMBER:
(Check one): UNLIMITED CASE [7 uimitep case
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000 127180
exceeds $25,000) or less)
A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows
Date: May5, 2005 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: TBA Div.: TBA Room: TBA
Address of court (if different from the address above).
INSTRUCTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked, and the specified information must be provided.
poe or parties (answer one):
This statement is submitted by party (name): Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline
. CJ 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 filed on (date): March 6, 2002
b The cross-complaint, if any, was filed on (date):
Service (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only)
All parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served, or have appeared, or have been dismissed.
b. Co) The following parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint
(1) OH 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) Oo have had a default entered against them (specify names).
c. Oo Thé following additional parties may be added (specify names, nature of involvement in case, and the date by which
they may be served):
Description of case
a. Type of case in complaint [1] cross-complaint (describe, including causes of action).
This is an action for partition of real property consisting of almond orchards and improvements and for injunctive
relief. Though a cross-complaint was filed to partition other property consisting primarily of range lands, it was
severed by order of the Court on June 13, 2003. Though the Court has not yet assigned a new case number to the
severed action, it indicated at the last case management conference that it might simply designate the severed
action by the same case number, however adding a "B" to it to designate its being a separate action.
Pago1 of4
Form Use CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Cal. Rules of Court,
“at Councl of Calera rule 212
(CM-110 (New July 1, 2002]
LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms
e e@ ‘CASE NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline, et al.
L 127180
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al.
4. b. Provide a brief statement of the case, including any damages. (If personal injury damages are sought, specify the injury and
damages claimed, including medical expenses to date [indicate source and amount], estimated future medical expenses, lost
earnings to date, and estimated future lost earnings. If equitable relief is sought, describe the nature of the relief.)
Plaintiff and defendants are four branches of the Meline family and as such, own more or less equally appoximately 820 acres of
contiguous almond orchards in Butte County. They also own in equal shares a corporation which has farmed the orchards since
1980 through a crop share leasing arrangement. Actual management of the orchards has been delegated by the corporation to
plaintiff Edward Richard Meline with regard to the southernmost approximately one-half of the orchards and to defendant Jack
Meline with respect to the northernmost one-half. Plaintiffs now wish to partition the orchards and pending such, to continue to
farm the southern half of the orchards, or at least that part of the southern half farmed by them continuously since the 1940s.
CI (if more space is needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.)
Jury or nonjury trial
The party or parties request CJ a jury trial a nonjury trial (if more than one party, provide the name of each party
requesting a jury trial):
Trial date
a The trial has been 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 filing 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):
Estimated length of trial
The party or parties estimate that the trial will take (check one):
a. days (specify number): See attachment.
b. [_] hours (short causes) (specify):
Trial representation (to be answered for each part)
The party or parties will be represented at trial by the attorney or party listed in the caption Oo 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): CCP § 36, pursuant to order of the Court.
10. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
a. Counsel has has not provided the ADR information package identified in rule 201.9 to the client and has
reviewed ADR options with the client.
b. [__] Allparties have agreed to a form of ADR. ADR will be completed by (date):
The case has gone to an ADR process (indicate status): See attachment.
CMH-4110 [New July 1, 2002} Page 2 of 4
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
LexisNexis” Automated California Judicial Council Forms
e @
‘CASE NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline, et al.
127180
[ DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al.
10. d. The party or parties are willit
(1) Mediation ach to participate
See attacl ment.
in (check all that apply):
(2) [E-] Nonbinding judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.12 (discovery to close 15 days before
arbitration under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1612)
(3) [J Nonbinding judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.12 (discovery to remain open until 30 days
before trial; order required under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1612)
(4) [J Binding judicial arbitration
(5) [_] Binding private arbitration
(6) [__] Neutral case evaluation
(7) Other (specify): See attachment.
e. [__] This matter is subject to mandatory judicial arbitration because the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory limit.
f. [1 Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount specified in Code of Civil
Procedure section 1141.11.
This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 1600.5 of the California Rules of Court (specify exemption):
Subsections (a), (f), and (g).
11. Settlement conference
[EX] The party or parties are willing to participate in an early settlement conference (specify when):
At the Court's discretion, though Plaintiffs feel an early scttlement conference would be in all partics' benefits given prior involvement
12, Insurance by the parties in mediation as more fully discussed in the attachment.
a. CI Insurance carrier, if any, for party filing this statement (name):
b. Reservation of rights: [JJ Yes [1] No
c. [] Coverage issues will significantly 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.
Co Bankruptcy [J other (specify):
Status:
14, Related.cases, consolidation, and coordination
a. There are companion, underlying, or related cases.
(1 Name of case: $i teph eline IV and Robert Meline v. Meline, et al.
&(4) Name of court: Butte County Superior Court
Case number: Uncertain - This case was originally included as a
Status: cross-complaint in this action but was severed by order of the court on June 13, 2003.
[-) Additional cases are described in Attachment 14a.
b. [_] Amotion to [_] consolidate [[) coordinate will be filed by (name party):
15. Bifurcation
The party or parties intend to file a motion for an order bifurcating, severing, or coordinating the following issues or causes of
action (specify moving party, type of motion, and reasons):
16. Other motions
oo The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type of motion, and issues):
GWET10 [New July 1, 2002) Page3 of 4
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms
a
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward. o Medline, et al. ‘CASE NUMBER:
127180
[ DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al.
17. Discovery
a. [_] The party or parties have completed all discovery.
b. The following discovery will be completed by the date specified (describe all anticipated discovery):
Party Descriptio1
Date
See attachment.
c. [] The following discovery issues are anticipated (specify):
18. Economic Litigation
a. This is 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 filed (if checked, explain specifically why economic litigation procedures relating to discovery or trial
should not apply to this case):
19. Other issues
[—] The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management
conference (specify):
20. Meet and confer
a. [©] 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):See attachment.
b. After meeting and conferring as required by rule 212 of the California Rules of Court, the parties agree on the following
(specify):
21. Case management orders
Previous case management orders in this case are (check one): [__] none [__] attached as Attachment 21.
22. Total number of pages attached (if any): 2
am completely familiar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and ADR, as well as other issues
raised by this statement, and will possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these issues at the time of the case management
conference, including the written authority of the party where required.
Date: April 25, 2005
JOHN JEFFERY CARTER
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (si TU PARTY ATTORNEY)
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
> (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)
[1 Additional signatures are attached
(CM-110 [New July 1, 2002]
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page
4 of 4
LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms
@ @
Meline v. Meline, et al.
Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180
Attachment to Case Management Statement of
Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline
The parties do not dispute their ownership interests in the orchard properties, and therefore an
interlocutory judgment determining the parties’ interests should be reached by stipulation.
The parties also long have agreed upon a division of the orchard property into four separate and clearly
identified parcels and the assignment of one such parcel to each of the four parties, making an
interlocutory judgment for partition by division also attainable by stipulation. Simply, it is unlikely that
the presumption for division can be overcome should any party prefer to sell.
By previous agreement, the parties (i) engaged Brennan & Sons, appraisers, in November, 2001 to
appraise the orchard property and the equipment used in connection with its farming and (ii) participated
in mediation with the Honorable Noel Watkins, Judge (retired). As a result, a tentative settlement was
reached on the division of the orchard property using the Brennan & Sons appraisal to facilitate partition
and distribution, with division of the property into four parcels and the allocation of one parcel to each
party. However, such tentative settlement was never consummated.
Three of the four parties (all excepting the Rabos) stipulate that Watkins should be appointed referee by
the Court and be empowered to engage an appraiser, including possibly Brennan & Sons, to appraise the
orchard property to assure that current, updated values are the basis for the partition. They also are agreed
that Watkins could engage an engineer to facilitate division of the orchard property into four parcels
consistent with the parties’ percentage ownership interests and prior agreement of division of the property
into four separate parcels. These parties do not feel that Watkins’ prior involvement as mediator would
prejudice any party, but instead would benefit all parties given his knowledge of the facts and issues
involved.
Watkins as referee could then make his report as to division of the property, including valuation of the
parcels.
Watkins as referee could also be charged with analyzing whether any value should be allocated to the
family corporation for improvements made by it while leasing the orchard properties. What, if any,
allocation should be made to the corporation for the value of improvements made by it to the orchards
while leasing the orchards remains a contentious issue.
Once Watkins has prepared and presented to the Court his report, any party wishing to object to it could
then be required to timely provide its objections and the bases therefor. Upon objection, the Court could
grant the parties additional time, say 120 days, in which to conduct discovery including the depositions of
the other parties and their. experts with respect to the issues arising out of the objections raised by the
objecting party or parties. Following this period, the Court could then schedule its hearing on the report
of the referee, hearing any parties’ objections thereto. In this manner, the time for hearing by the Court
could be limited. In any event, plaintiffs estimate that final hearing on the report should not last more
than five days.
The severed action concerning the range property is not joined to this action and therefore should be
considered separately. Plaintiffs are not parties to the severed action and therefore have no interest
therein.
@ @
In sum, Watkins should be appointed referee and be given authority to partition the orchard property by
division, and to determine what, if any, allocation of the improvements should be given the corporation.
His fees and costs should be borne by the parties in proportion to their percentage interest in ownership of
the orchard property.
Attachment to Case Management Statement
Of Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline
Meline v. Meline, et al.
Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180
Page 2 of 2
-
@ ®
PROOF OF SERVICE
Meline v. Meline, et al.
Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180
lam acitizen of the United States and am a resident of the County of Butte. I am over the age of 18 years
and not a party to the within action; my business address is CARTER LAW OFFICE, 329 Flume Street,
Chico, California 95928.
On this date, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
Further Case Management Statement with Attachment
On the parties below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and served same on the
parties/counsel, addressed as follows:
James B. Berglund Nels. A. Christensen
Attorney at Law Christensen & Schwarz, LLP
1639 Bird Street 1 Governors Lane
10 Oroville, CA 95965 Chico,CA 95926
11 Richard L. Crabtree Charleton S. Pearse
Law Office of Richard L. Crabtree Vicki E. Hartigan
12 854 Manzanita Court, Suite 110 McMurchie, Weill, Lenahan, Lee,
Chico, CA 95926 Slater & Pearse
13 1030 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300
William A. Ward Sacramento,CA 95814
14 Attorney at Law
9 Williamsburg Lane
15 Chico,CA 95926
16
The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected:
17
Ax US. Postal Service (placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the
18 designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office’s practice, whereby the
mail is deposited in the U.S. mailbox in the City of Chico, California after the close of the
19 day’s business).
20 Federal Express
21 Express Mail
22 Personal Service
23 Facsimile
24
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this document is executed
25 at Chico, California on April 25, 2005.
26
27
28 TONI MELTON
Preview
ey CM-110 ev ORE ARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY, (Ne von ‘and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY ety Carer Bar HOTS: Lose ER AW OFFI 329 Flume Street, P. ot Box 3606, Chico, CA 95927-3606 Za TELEPHONE NO. °(530) 3 42-6196 FaxNo. ntone9: (530) 342-6195 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE i ee street aopress: 655 eander Avenue maine aooress: Same As Above PR 28 2005 cry ano zip cove: Chico, CA 95926 arancH name: Chico Courthouse Clerk D PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline, et al. Deputy DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NUMBER: (Check one): UNLIMITED CASE [7 uimitep case (Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000 127180 exceeds $25,000) or less) A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows Date: May5, 2005 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: TBA Div.: TBA Room: TBA Address of court (if different from the address above). INSTRUCTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked, and the specified information must be provided. poe or parties (answer one): This statement is submitted by party (name): Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline . CJ 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 filed on (date): March 6, 2002 b The cross-complaint, if any, was filed on (date): Service (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only) All parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served, or have appeared, or have been dismissed. b. Co) The following parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint (1) OH 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) Oo have had a default entered against them (specify names). c. Oo Thé following additional parties may be added (specify names, nature of involvement in case, and the date by which they may be served): Description of case a. Type of case in complaint [1] cross-complaint (describe, including causes of action). This is an action for partition of real property consisting of almond orchards and improvements and for injunctive relief. Though a cross-complaint was filed to partition other property consisting primarily of range lands, it was severed by order of the Court on June 13, 2003. Though the Court has not yet assigned a new case number to the severed action, it indicated at the last case management conference that it might simply designate the severed action by the same case number, however adding a "B" to it to designate its being a separate action. Pago1 of4 Form Use CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Cal. Rules of Court, “at Councl of Calera rule 212 (CM-110 (New July 1, 2002] LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms e e@ ‘CASE NUMBER: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline, et al. L 127180 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al. 4. b. Provide a brief statement of the case, including any damages. (If personal injury damages are sought, specify the injury and damages claimed, including medical expenses to date [indicate source and amount], estimated future medical expenses, lost earnings to date, and estimated future lost earnings. If equitable relief is sought, describe the nature of the relief.) Plaintiff and defendants are four branches of the Meline family and as such, own more or less equally appoximately 820 acres of contiguous almond orchards in Butte County. They also own in equal shares a corporation which has farmed the orchards since 1980 through a crop share leasing arrangement. Actual management of the orchards has been delegated by the corporation to plaintiff Edward Richard Meline with regard to the southernmost approximately one-half of the orchards and to defendant Jack Meline with respect to the northernmost one-half. Plaintiffs now wish to partition the orchards and pending such, to continue to farm the southern half of the orchards, or at least that part of the southern half farmed by them continuously since the 1940s. CI (if more space is needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.) Jury or nonjury trial The party or parties request CJ a jury trial a nonjury trial (if more than one party, provide the name of each party requesting a jury trial): Trial date a The trial has been 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 filing 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): Estimated length of trial The party or parties estimate that the trial will take (check one): a. days (specify number): See attachment. b. [_] hours (short causes) (specify): Trial representation (to be answered for each part) The party or parties will be represented at trial by the attorney or party listed in the caption Oo 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): CCP § 36, pursuant to order of the Court. 10. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) a. Counsel has has not provided the ADR information package identified in rule 201.9 to the client and has reviewed ADR options with the client. b. [__] Allparties have agreed to a form of ADR. ADR will be completed by (date): The case has gone to an ADR process (indicate status): See attachment. CMH-4110 [New July 1, 2002} Page 2 of 4 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT LexisNexis” Automated California Judicial Council Forms e @ ‘CASE NUMBER: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline, et al. 127180 [ DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al. 10. d. The party or parties are willit (1) Mediation ach to participate See attacl ment. in (check all that apply): (2) [E-] Nonbinding judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.12 (discovery to close 15 days before arbitration under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1612) (3) [J Nonbinding judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.12 (discovery to remain open until 30 days before trial; order required under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1612) (4) [J Binding judicial arbitration (5) [_] Binding private arbitration (6) [__] Neutral case evaluation (7) Other (specify): See attachment. e. [__] This matter is subject to mandatory judicial arbitration because the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory limit. f. [1 Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.11. This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 1600.5 of the California Rules of Court (specify exemption): Subsections (a), (f), and (g). 11. Settlement conference [EX] The party or parties are willing to participate in an early settlement conference (specify when): At the Court's discretion, though Plaintiffs feel an early scttlement conference would be in all partics' benefits given prior involvement 12, Insurance by the parties in mediation as more fully discussed in the attachment. a. CI Insurance carrier, if any, for party filing this statement (name): b. Reservation of rights: [JJ Yes [1] No c. [] Coverage issues will significantly 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. Co Bankruptcy [J other (specify): Status: 14, Related.cases, consolidation, and coordination a. There are companion, underlying, or related cases. (1 Name of case: $i teph eline IV and Robert Meline v. Meline, et al. &(4) Name of court: Butte County Superior Court Case number: Uncertain - This case was originally included as a Status: cross-complaint in this action but was severed by order of the court on June 13, 2003. [-) Additional cases are described in Attachment 14a. b. [_] Amotion to [_] consolidate [[) coordinate will be filed by (name party): 15. Bifurcation The party or parties intend to file a motion for an order bifurcating, severing, or coordinating the following issues or causes of action (specify moving party, type of motion, and reasons): 16. Other motions oo The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type of motion, and issues): GWET10 [New July 1, 2002) Page3 of 4 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms a PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward. o Medline, et al. ‘CASE NUMBER: 127180 [ DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al. 17. Discovery a. [_] The party or parties have completed all discovery. b. The following discovery will be completed by the date specified (describe all anticipated discovery): Party Descriptio1 Date See attachment. c. [] The following discovery issues are anticipated (specify): 18. Economic Litigation a. This is 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 filed (if checked, explain specifically why economic litigation procedures relating to discovery or trial should not apply to this case): 19. Other issues [—] The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management conference (specify): 20. Meet and confer a. [©] 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):See attachment. b. After meeting and conferring as required by rule 212 of the California Rules of Court, the parties agree on the following (specify): 21. Case management orders Previous case management orders in this case are (check one): [__] none [__] attached as Attachment 21. 22. Total number of pages attached (if any): 2 am completely familiar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and ADR, as well as other issues raised by this statement, and will possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these issues at the time of the case management conference, including the written authority of the party where required. Date: April 25, 2005 JOHN JEFFERY CARTER (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (si TU PARTY ATTORNEY) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) > (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) [1 Additional signatures are attached (CM-110 [New July 1, 2002] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page 4 of 4 LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms @ @ Meline v. Meline, et al. Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180 Attachment to Case Management Statement of Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline The parties do not dispute their ownership interests in the orchard properties, and therefore an interlocutory judgment determining the parties’ interests should be reached by stipulation. The parties also long have agreed upon a division of the orchard property into four separate and clearly identified parcels and the assignment of one such parcel to each of the four parties, making an interlocutory judgment for partition by division also attainable by stipulation. Simply, it is unlikely that the presumption for division can be overcome should any party prefer to sell. By previous agreement, the parties (i) engaged Brennan & Sons, appraisers, in November, 2001 to appraise the orchard property and the equipment used in connection with its farming and (ii) participated in mediation with the Honorable Noel Watkins, Judge (retired). As a result, a tentative settlement was reached on the division of the orchard property using the Brennan & Sons appraisal to facilitate partition and distribution, with division of the property into four parcels and the allocation of one parcel to each party. However, such tentative settlement was never consummated. Three of the four parties (all excepting the Rabos) stipulate that Watkins should be appointed referee by the Court and be empowered to engage an appraiser, including possibly Brennan & Sons, to appraise the orchard property to assure that current, updated values are the basis for the partition. They also are agreed that Watkins could engage an engineer to facilitate division of the orchard property into four parcels consistent with the parties’ percentage ownership interests and prior agreement of division of the property into four separate parcels. These parties do not feel that Watkins’ prior involvement as mediator would prejudice any party, but instead would benefit all parties given his knowledge of the facts and issues involved. Watkins as referee could then make his report as to division of the property, including valuation of the parcels. Watkins as referee could also be charged with analyzing whether any value should be allocated to the family corporation for improvements made by it while leasing the orchard properties. What, if any, allocation should be made to the corporation for the value of improvements made by it to the orchards while leasing the orchards remains a contentious issue. Once Watkins has prepared and presented to the Court his report, any party wishing to object to it could then be required to timely provide its objections and the bases therefor. Upon objection, the Court could grant the parties additional time, say 120 days, in which to conduct discovery including the depositions of the other parties and their. experts with respect to the issues arising out of the objections raised by the objecting party or parties. Following this period, the Court could then schedule its hearing on the report of the referee, hearing any parties’ objections thereto. In this manner, the time for hearing by the Court could be limited. In any event, plaintiffs estimate that final hearing on the report should not last more than five days. The severed action concerning the range property is not joined to this action and therefore should be considered separately. Plaintiffs are not parties to the severed action and therefore have no interest therein. @ @ In sum, Watkins should be appointed referee and be given authority to partition the orchard property by division, and to determine what, if any, allocation of the improvements should be given the corporation. His fees and costs should be borne by the parties in proportion to their percentage interest in ownership of the orchard property. Attachment to Case Management Statement Of Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline Meline v. Meline, et al. Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180 Page 2 of 2 - @ ® PROOF OF SERVICE Meline v. Meline, et al. Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180 lam acitizen of the United States and am a resident of the County of Butte. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is CARTER LAW OFFICE, 329 Flume Street, Chico, California 95928. On this date, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: Further Case Management Statement with Attachment On the parties below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and served same on the parties/counsel, addressed as follows: James B. Berglund Nels. A. Christensen Attorney at Law Christensen & Schwarz, LLP 1639 Bird Street 1 Governors Lane 10 Oroville, CA 95965 Chico,CA 95926 11 Richard L. Crabtree Charleton S. Pearse Law Office of Richard L. Crabtree Vicki E. Hartigan 12 854 Manzanita Court, Suite 110 McMurchie, Weill, Lenahan, Lee, Chico, CA 95926 Slater & Pearse 13 1030 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300 William A. Ward Sacramento,CA 95814 14 Attorney at Law 9 Williamsburg Lane 15 Chico,CA 95926 16 The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected: 17 Ax US. Postal Service (placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the 18 designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office’s practice, whereby the mail is deposited in the U.S. mailbox in the City of Chico, California after the close of the 19 day’s business). 20 Federal Express 21 Express Mail 22 Personal Service 23 Facsimile 24 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this document is executed 25 at Chico, California on April 25, 2005. 26 27 28 TONI MELTON