Preview
7
N
"ATTORNEY aOR pany
John Jeffer
Py ‘WITHOUT ATTORNEY,
Carter (Bar #
®
BIG 35) Ty, ‘number, and address): 9 FOR COURT USE ONLY
CM-110
| CARTER AW O])
329 Flume Street, P.O. Box 3606, Chico, CA 95927-3606
‘TELEPHONE NO. 530) 342-61 96 Fax No. Gstonan: (530) 342-6195
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline Butte County FF
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE Supedor Court
street aporess: 655 Oleander Avenue L
maluinc aooress: Same As Above 2005
cry ano zip cove: Chico, CA 95926
SEP 4 E
srancH name: Chico Courthouse D_ sharoi in Kana cierk OD)
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline, et al. ay Er
Deputy!
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al.
FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NUMBER:
(Check one): UNLIMITED CASE (J uimitep case
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000 127180A
exceeds $25,000) or less)
A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows:
Date: October 7, 2005 Time: 10:30 a.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.
Party or parties (answer one):
a. This statement is submitted by party (name): Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline
b Co 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)
a. All parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served, or have appeared, or have been dismissed.
b. Cc The following parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint
(1) [1 have not been served (specify names and explain why not):
(2) CO have been served but have not appeared and have not been dismissed (specify names):
(3) [1 have had a default entered against them (specify names):
c Co The 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.
Page1 of4
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Cal, Rules of Cour,
Judicial Council of California rule 212,
(CM-110 [New July 1, 2002}
LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms
CASE NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline, et al.
L
127180A
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 Icast that part of the southern half farmed by them continuously since the 1940s.
CO (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 CI 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):
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. LX] 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:
[J Additional representation is described in Attachment 8.
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 [1 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):
c. [X] The case has gone to an ADR process (indicate status): See attachment.
(M470 [New July 1, 2002} Page2 of 4
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms
CASE NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline, et al.
127180A
[DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al.
10. d. The party or parties are willing to participate in (check all that apply):
(1) Mediation See attachment.
(2) [__] 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) [] 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 Califomia 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 settlement conference would be in all parties' 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: Co Yes [-] No
c. CI 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.
CI Bankruptcy [5 other (specify):
Status:
14, Relate cases, consolidation, and coordination
There are companion, underlying, or related cases.
1) Name of case: $i tephen M eline IV, et al. v. Randall Meline, et al.
2) Name of court: Butte County Superior Court
'3) Case number: 127180B
(4) Status:
[—) Additional cases are described in Attachment 14a.
b. [_] Amotion to {_] consolidate [1 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
([) The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type of motion, and issues):
CM-110 [New July 1, 2002] Page3 of 4
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline, et al. CASE NUMBER:
127180A
[ DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al.
17. Discovery
a. [_] The party or parties have completed all discovery.
The following discovery will be completed by the date specified (describe all anticipated discovery):
Party Description
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. Otherissues
[] 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. [X] 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 attacl ent.
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): 1
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 requi
lLUe
Date: September , 2005
JOHN JEFFERY CARTER
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE PARTY OR ATTORNEY)
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
» (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)
[_] Additional signatures are attached
(CMH4110 (New July 1, 2002} CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Page 4of4
Forms
e e
Meline v. Meline, et al.
Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180A
Attachment to Case Management Statement of
Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline
This action commenced March 6, 2002. Despite priority being granted it, it remains pending with no end
in sight. Meanwhile, the parties remain joined at the hip, though none wants any attachment to the others,
legally or otherwise. And they now wrap up the fourth crop harvest after the action was commenced,
“partners” in it not by choice, but because the procedure provided by law for separating themselves,
partition, has not yet been allowed to work.
Nonetheless, the parties do not dispute their ownership interests in the Orchard Property, and therefore an
interlocutory judgment determining the parties’ interests should be attainable by stipulation or by order of
the Court.
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 or by the Court. Simply, it
is unlikely that the presumption for division can be overcome should any party prefer to sell.
All parties stipulated and on the basis of such the Court ordered that Noel Watkins, Judge (retired) be
appointed referee by the Court and be empowered to engage an appraiser 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.
Based on the foregoing, Watkins as referee should be directed to proceed as soon as possible to engage an
appraiser and an engineer and with their analyses, he could then make his report as to division of the
property, including valuation of the parcels.
Watkins as referee may also analyze whether any value should be allocated to the family corporation for
improvements made by it while leasing the Orchard Property.
Plaintiffs believe that the appraisal, division and analysis could be completed by January 31, 2006. 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.
It is time to get serious about resolving and terminating this action. The parties need not, and by default
should not, be forced to be partners in one more crop year. Only with the setting of dates by the Court —
dates for submission by the referee of his report, for objections to be filed for a hearing thereon — will we
finally be able to resolve this matter.
® e
PROOF OF SERVICE
Meline v. Meline, et al.
Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180
Iam a citizen 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
1838 Feather River Blvd. 1 Governors Lane
10 Oroville, CA 95965 Chico, CA 95926
il 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 September 21, 2005.
26
27
Tow Mette
28 TONI MELTON
Preview
7 N "ATTORNEY aOR pany John Jeffer Py ‘WITHOUT ATTORNEY, Carter (Bar # ® BIG 35) Ty, ‘number, and address): 9 FOR COURT USE ONLY CM-110 | CARTER AW O]) 329 Flume Street, P.O. Box 3606, Chico, CA 95927-3606 ‘TELEPHONE NO. 530) 342-61 96 Fax No. Gstonan: (530) 342-6195 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline Butte County FF SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE Supedor Court street aporess: 655 Oleander Avenue L maluinc aooress: Same As Above 2005 cry ano zip cove: Chico, CA 95926 SEP 4 E srancH name: Chico Courthouse D_ sharoi in Kana cierk OD) PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline, et al. ay Er Deputy! DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al. FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NUMBER: (Check one): UNLIMITED CASE (J uimitep case (Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000 127180A exceeds $25,000) or less) A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows: Date: October 7, 2005 Time: 10:30 a.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. Party or parties (answer one): a. This statement is submitted by party (name): Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline b Co 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) a. All parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served, or have appeared, or have been dismissed. b. Cc The following parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint (1) [1 have not been served (specify names and explain why not): (2) CO have been served but have not appeared and have not been dismissed (specify names): (3) [1 have had a default entered against them (specify names): c Co The 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. Page1 of4 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Cal, Rules of Cour, Judicial Council of California rule 212, (CM-110 [New July 1, 2002} LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms CASE NUMBER: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline, et al. L 127180A 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 Icast that part of the southern half farmed by them continuously since the 1940s. CO (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 CI 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): 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. LX] 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: [J Additional representation is described in Attachment 8. 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 [1 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): c. [X] The case has gone to an ADR process (indicate status): See attachment. (M470 [New July 1, 2002} Page2 of 4 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms CASE NUMBER: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline, et al. 127180A [DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al. 10. d. The party or parties are willing to participate in (check all that apply): (1) Mediation See attachment. (2) [__] 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) [] 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 Califomia 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 settlement conference would be in all parties' 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: Co Yes [-] No c. CI 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. CI Bankruptcy [5 other (specify): Status: 14, Relate cases, consolidation, and coordination There are companion, underlying, or related cases. 1) Name of case: $i tephen M eline IV, et al. v. Randall Meline, et al. 2) Name of court: Butte County Superior Court '3) Case number: 127180B (4) Status: [—) Additional cases are described in Attachment 14a. b. [_] Amotion to {_] consolidate [1 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 ([) The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type of motion, and issues): CM-110 [New July 1, 2002] Page3 of 4 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Forms PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Edward Richard Meline, et al. CASE NUMBER: 127180A [ DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Jack Meline, et al. 17. Discovery a. [_] The party or parties have completed all discovery. The following discovery will be completed by the date specified (describe all anticipated discovery): Party Description 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. Otherissues [] 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. [X] 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 attacl ent. 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): 1 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 requi lLUe Date: September , 2005 JOHN JEFFERY CARTER (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE PARTY OR ATTORNEY) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) » (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) [_] Additional signatures are attached (CMH4110 (New July 1, 2002} CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT LexisNexis" Automated California Judicial Council Page 4of4 Forms e e Meline v. Meline, et al. Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180A Attachment to Case Management Statement of Plaintiffs Edward Richard Meline and Charlene Meline This action commenced March 6, 2002. Despite priority being granted it, it remains pending with no end in sight. Meanwhile, the parties remain joined at the hip, though none wants any attachment to the others, legally or otherwise. And they now wrap up the fourth crop harvest after the action was commenced, “partners” in it not by choice, but because the procedure provided by law for separating themselves, partition, has not yet been allowed to work. Nonetheless, the parties do not dispute their ownership interests in the Orchard Property, and therefore an interlocutory judgment determining the parties’ interests should be attainable by stipulation or by order of the Court. 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 or by the Court. Simply, it is unlikely that the presumption for division can be overcome should any party prefer to sell. All parties stipulated and on the basis of such the Court ordered that Noel Watkins, Judge (retired) be appointed referee by the Court and be empowered to engage an appraiser 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. Based on the foregoing, Watkins as referee should be directed to proceed as soon as possible to engage an appraiser and an engineer and with their analyses, he could then make his report as to division of the property, including valuation of the parcels. Watkins as referee may also analyze whether any value should be allocated to the family corporation for improvements made by it while leasing the Orchard Property. Plaintiffs believe that the appraisal, division and analysis could be completed by January 31, 2006. 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. It is time to get serious about resolving and terminating this action. The parties need not, and by default should not, be forced to be partners in one more crop year. Only with the setting of dates by the Court — dates for submission by the referee of his report, for objections to be filed for a hearing thereon — will we finally be able to resolve this matter. ® e PROOF OF SERVICE Meline v. Meline, et al. Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180 Iam a citizen 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 1838 Feather River Blvd. 1 Governors Lane 10 Oroville, CA 95965 Chico, CA 95926 il 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 September 21, 2005. 26 27 Tow Mette 28 TONI MELTON