Preview
~n........._..~...,..,,................_....
E“ E EA E Efi
SAN MATEO COUNTY
RICHARD M. KELLY, ESQ. (SBN: 154504)
MICHAEL MENGARELLI, ESQ. (SBN: 215000) MAR 1 1.2020
KELLY LITIGATION GROUP, INC.
306 Lorton Avenue
Butlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 591—2282
\Dm'QONUI-BMNI—l
Facsimile: (650) 591-2292
/ 13—cw—uus4s
‘
EPA
WAIVED APRIL S. GLATT, ESQ. (SBN: 185708) Ex Pane Application
CHAUVEL & GLATT, LLP
/ 66 Bovet Road, Suite 280
San Mateo, CA 94402 Kfiifiiummmuu'“"“""”"
Telephone: (650) 573—9500
F5539
Facsimile: (650) 573—9689
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants,
MATTHEW SQUIRES and NICOLE SQUIRES
TN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
(UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION)
MATTHEW SQUIRES, et al., Case No.: 18-CIV-00846
Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF PLAINTIFS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION AND EX PARTE
vs.
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
H
WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., dba
R.C. SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION T0 ENFORCE
WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES; ct SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
al.,
Defendants,
HowoeqmmamNh-cgoozamzasfig Date: March 11, 2020
Time: 10:00 am.
and RELATED CROSS—ACTIONS. Dept: Law and Motion
Action Filed: Februa1y 20, 201 8
\Trial Date: November 12, 20 1 9
wwNNNNNNNNNN
TO THE COURT AND ALL THE PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS
OF RECORD:
Notice ig hereby given that on March 11, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
application can be heard, in the Law and Motion Depaflment of San Mateo Superior Court, located at
1
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN .ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR
PLAINTFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
400 County Center! Redwood City, CA 94063,. Plaintiffs Matthew Squires and Nicole Squires
(“Plaintiffs”) will and hereby do apply for an Order .Shoflening'TimQ to Hear Riaintiffs’ Motion to
Enforce Settlement;
The application is made oh the basis that there exists good cause for the shortening of time to
hear Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce. Settlement because, ifnot’ granted, Plaintiffs will Suffer, and continue
to siJffér, ifreparablé llama.
This Ex Parte‘Applicati‘on for an Order Shofiening Time is based upon this Notide' of EX Parle
Application for-an Order Shortening Time, the accompanying Memorandum of Poifits and Authorities,
the accompanying Declarations of Michael Mengarelli and Matthew Squires, Plaintiffs Notice of
Motion andMoti’on to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6), the pleading, files»,
.
and records of this action? an on any oral Qf other evidence gs may be presented at‘the hearing on this
applipati‘on.
b
Dated: March 9, 2020 KELLY LITIGATION GROUP INC.
Michael Mengalelli, Esq. .
Attomeys £01 Plaintiffs and Closerefendants,
chooe-Q'mmAwNHg-qu:EEEESES
MATTHEW SQUJRES- and NICOLE SQULRES
wwNNNNNNNNN‘mp-A...
Dated: March 9, 2020 CHAUVEL & GLATT,'LLP
M
April s. Glétt, Es‘q.
Attomeys for Plaintiffs and Cross—Defendants,
MATTHEW SQUTRES and NICOLE SQUIRES
2 :
NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR
PLAIN’I'IFFS’
PLAINTFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
lo
I. »
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs bring this ex parts application for am order shortening time so that their motion to
enforce a settlement agreement entered into with Defendants R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc., dba
\OOOH-IQUl-D-b}
Wehmeyer Custom Homes (“RCWC”) and Robert C. Wchmeyer (“Wehmeyer”) can be heard as soon
as possible because RCWC and Wehmeyer refuse to record a release of a mechanics’ lien on Plaintiffs’
property, as required under the settlement agreement, clouding title and causing them to suffer
10
ineparable hann. Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm until RCWC and Wehmeyer are
11 ordered to comply with the terms of the agreement anti release the lien. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce
12 Settlement Agmement is attached as Exhibit I to the Declaration of Michael Mengarelli in Support of
13 Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time
Plaintiffs’ to Hear Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce
14
Settlement Agreement (“Mengarelli Dem”).
15
II. FACTS
16
On October 10, 2019, the parties, comprised of Plaintiffs, RCWC, Wehmeyer, Robert C.
17
18 Wehmeyer Design, Inc., dba. Wehmeyer Design (“RCWD”), American Contractors Indemnity
19 Company (“ACIC”) and Monarca Roofing, Inc. (“Monarca”), appeared at a mandatmy settlement
20 conference before Judge Grandsaert. (Mengarelli Dec., 4.) A week after the settlement conference,
1]
21
the parties agreed to a full settlement of this matter. (Mengarelli Dec., Thereafter, on October
fl 4.)
22
21, 2019, counsel for Plainfiffs circulated a draft settlement agreement. (Mengarelli Dec., 1[ 5.) The
23
agreement was negotiated over the next three months, with a final drafi circulated to all counsel on
24
25 January 14, 2020. (Mengarelli Dec., 1] 5.) Pursuant to tile terms of the Settlement Agreement, RCWC
26 and Monarca agreed to pay Plaintiffs a total of $200,000 within 30 days, RCWC agreed to release the
27 mechanics’ lien and lis pendens, and all parties agreed to dismiss the entire action. (Mengarelli Dec.,
28
fl 6.)
29
Plaintiffs signed the Settlement Agreement on January 16, 2020; counsel for RCWC, RCWD,
30
ACIC, and Wehmeyer, Brian W. Newcomb, approved the form of the Settlement Agreement on
31
3
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR
PLAINTFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
January 17, 2020; Monarca signed on January 22, 2020; and RCWC and Wehmeyer signed on January ~
24, 2020. (Mengarelli Dec., W 6-9.) ACIC did not sign the Settlement Agreement.
According to Mr. Newcomb, ‘who raised this issue for tlie first time on Janualy 3 1, 2020, at
WW-QQUIhUJNH
10: 17 p.m., ACIC objected to language in the release section that conflicted with its separate indemnity
agreement with RCWC. (Mengarelli Dec., 11 11.) Mr. Newcomb asked that ACIC, a party to the
lawsuit, be removed fiom the Settlement Agreement and that it be re-ciroulated for new signatures.
(Mengarelli Dec., 1[ 11.) Counsel for Plaintiffs rejected this absurd notion, informing Mr. Newcomb
that RCWC and ACIC could enter into a side agreement addressing ACIC’s concerns, but in no event
would Plaintiffs agree to remove ACIC fforfi the Settlement Agreement and in no event would they
ACIC from the
-
dismiss lawsuit ifthey did not sign it. (Mengarelli Dec., 1f 12.)
On February 6, 2020, Mr. Newcomb circulated a new draft 0f an agreement with ACIC crossed
out. (Mengarelli Dec., fl 13.) Counsel for Plaintiffs immediately informed Mr. Newcomb that he
rejected this revised agreement and that the Settlement Agreement was fully enforceable against the
parties that signed it. (Mengarelli Dec., 1f 13.) Mr. Newcomb, in a transparent attempt to manufacture
leverage and avoid a conflict between his clients that he failed to address before approving the form of
the Settlement Agreement, informed counsel that he would not record the release of lien or withdrawal
chwqmmawmucmeREEBSKS
of lis pendens until the issue between his clients was resolved. (Mengarelli Dec, 1] 16.)
On February 10, 2020, Plaintiffs received a check from Monarca for their share ofthe settlement
proceeds. (Mengarelli Dec., 11 14.) On February 28, 2020, counsel for RCWC’s insurance company,
Albert T. Finch, III, informed counsel for Plaintiffs that his ofiice had mailed a check for RCWC’S
mwNNN‘NNNNNNNHn-s
share of the settlement proceeds, but the parties later discovered that the check had been mailed to
counsel’s old office address; Plaintiffs await receipt ofthe check. (Mengarelli Dec., 1] 19.)
Meanwhile, the mechanics’ lien remains on Plaintiffs property, clouding title. (Mengarelli
Dec., 1] 20.) Plaintiffs are in the process of applying to refinance their mortgage and the existence of
the lien will preclude that. (Declaration of Matthew Squires in Support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte
Application for an Order Shortening Time t0 Hear Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (“Squires
Dec.”),1] 6.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs need the lien released now; they cannot wait until the court can
4
NOTICE 0F PLAINTIFFS’ Ex PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME T0 HEAR
PLAINTFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
hear their motion to enforce the settlement agreement 0:1 its regular schedule for available hearing dates
for noticed motions. (Squires Dec., 1I 7.)
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
\OOOQGU‘IALNNH
A court may, 0n application supported by a declaration showing good cause, shorten the time
for filing and selvice of papers for a motion. (Cal. Ru]es of Comt, lule 3. 130003).) In order t0 obtain
ex part6 relieffor such a motion, an applicant “must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration
containing competent testimony based 0n personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger,
or any other statutory basis for granting relier .” (Cal. Rules of Coun, rule 3.1202
. . .
(0).).
Here, Plaintiffs seek ex part6 reliefto shorten the time to file and argue their motion to enforce
the settlement agreement because litigating the motion on the court’s regular first—afiailable motion
calendar precludes Plaintiffs’ from applying t0 refinance their mortgage now, which would expose them
lrise
to the risk that interest rates will by the time the mechanics’ lien clouding title t0 their property is
released. Despite the fact that RCWC was required pursuant to the Settlement Agreement to
immediately release the lien, RCWC is refusing to do it. A lien creates a cloud on title and California
courts recognize that damages accrue when the cloud is not legally supported. (See e.g. Seeley v.
Seymour (1987) 190 Ca1.App.3d 844, 857.) Thus, Plaintiffs are being damaged by RCWC refusing to
perform its obligations under the Settlement Agreement, and waiting an additional two months for the
Hemmqamamwwaxbasaazasdg
relief they are entitled to now risks Plaintiffs losing the very favorable interest rate lock they have
received for their mortgage refinance application. (See Squies Dec., 1] 6.) In light of the forgoing,
Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause to shorten the time to hear the motion because they face
umNNNNNNNNNNr-n
irreparable harm if the lien is not released immediately.
California Rule of Court, rule 3. 1203 provides that “a party seeking an exparte order must notify
all parties no later than 10:00 am. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a showing of
exceptional circumstances thatjustify a shorter time for notice.” Here, counsel for Plaintiffs notified all
parties on Monday, March 9, 2020, more than 24 hours before the hearing 0n the application. (See
Mengarefli Dec., 1H] 21 ~22.)
5
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR
PLAINTFFS’ MOTION T0 ENFORCB SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
‘
IV. CONCLUSION
[Q
RCWC’s refusal to immediately recorda release of the mechanic’s lien and lis pendens it l‘ecorded
UJ
against Plaintiffs’ propemy, as it agreed to ‘do in the Settlement Agreement, is preventing Plaintiffs from
J=-
'JI refinancing their mortgage and thus causing them irreparable injmy each day the lien remains in place.
Ex pane relief granting'Plaintiffs a shofiened schedule to have their motion to enforce. the Settlement
\OOO'QO
10
11
12
13
14
15
Agreement heard
Dated:
Dated:
March
March
9,
9,
is
2020
2020
wan'anted.
By:
(
v
KEL, Y LITIGATION GROUP, INC:
Michael Mengarelli, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross~Defendants,
MATTHEW SQUIRES
CHAUVEL & GLATT? LLP
and NICOLE SQUIRES
16
17 By' g/
April S. Glam, Esq.
18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cfoss—Defendants,
19 MATTHEW SQUIRES' and NICOLE SQUIRES
20
21
22
23,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30‘
31
6
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTBNING TIME TO HEAR
PLAINTFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Preview
~n........._..~...,..,,................_.... E“ E EA E Efi SAN MATEO COUNTY RICHARD M. KELLY, ESQ. (SBN: 154504) MICHAEL MENGARELLI, ESQ. (SBN: 215000) MAR 1 1.2020 KELLY LITIGATION GROUP, INC. 306 Lorton Avenue Butlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 591—2282 \Dm'QONUI-BMNI—l Facsimile: (650) 591-2292 / 13—cw—uus4s ‘ EPA WAIVED APRIL S. GLATT, ESQ. (SBN: 185708) Ex Pane Application CHAUVEL & GLATT, LLP / 66 Bovet Road, Suite 280 San Mateo, CA 94402 Kfiifiiummmuu'“"“""”" Telephone: (650) 573—9500 F5539 Facsimile: (650) 573—9689 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants, MATTHEW SQUIRES and NICOLE SQUIRES TN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO (UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION) MATTHEW SQUIRES, et al., Case No.: 18-CIV-00846 Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF PLAINTIFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION AND EX PARTE vs. APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER H WEHMEYER CONSTRUCTION, INC., dba R.C. SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION T0 ENFORCE WEHMEYER CUSTOM HOMES; ct SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT al., Defendants, HowoeqmmamNh-cgoozamzasfig Date: March 11, 2020 Time: 10:00 am. and RELATED CROSS—ACTIONS. Dept: Law and Motion Action Filed: Februa1y 20, 201 8 \Trial Date: November 12, 20 1 9 wwNNNNNNNNNN TO THE COURT AND ALL THE PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Notice ig hereby given that on March 11, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the application can be heard, in the Law and Motion Depaflment of San Mateo Superior Court, located at 1 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN .ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR PLAINTFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 400 County Center! Redwood City, CA 94063,. Plaintiffs Matthew Squires and Nicole Squires (“Plaintiffs”) will and hereby do apply for an Order .Shoflening'TimQ to Hear Riaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement; The application is made oh the basis that there exists good cause for the shortening of time to hear Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce. Settlement because, ifnot’ granted, Plaintiffs will Suffer, and continue to siJffér, ifreparablé llama. This Ex Parte‘Applicati‘on for an Order Shofiening Time is based upon this Notide' of EX Parle Application for-an Order Shortening Time, the accompanying Memorandum of Poifits and Authorities, the accompanying Declarations of Michael Mengarelli and Matthew Squires, Plaintiffs Notice of Motion andMoti’on to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6), the pleading, files», . and records of this action? an on any oral Qf other evidence gs may be presented at‘the hearing on this applipati‘on. b Dated: March 9, 2020 KELLY LITIGATION GROUP INC. Michael Mengalelli, Esq. . Attomeys £01 Plaintiffs and Closerefendants, chooe-Q'mmAwNHg-qu:EEEESES MATTHEW SQUJRES- and NICOLE SQULRES wwNNNNNNNNN‘mp-A... Dated: March 9, 2020 CHAUVEL & GLATT,'LLP M April s. Glétt, Es‘q. Attomeys for Plaintiffs and Cross—Defendants, MATTHEW SQUTRES and NICOLE SQUIRES 2 : NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR PLAIN’I'IFFS’ PLAINTFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES lo I. » INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this ex parts application for am order shortening time so that their motion to enforce a settlement agreement entered into with Defendants R.C. Wehmeyer Construction, Inc., dba \OOOH-IQUl-D-b} Wehmeyer Custom Homes (“RCWC”) and Robert C. Wchmeyer (“Wehmeyer”) can be heard as soon as possible because RCWC and Wehmeyer refuse to record a release of a mechanics’ lien on Plaintiffs’ property, as required under the settlement agreement, clouding title and causing them to suffer 10 ineparable hann. Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm until RCWC and Wehmeyer are 11 ordered to comply with the terms of the agreement anti release the lien. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce 12 Settlement Agmement is attached as Exhibit I to the Declaration of Michael Mengarelli in Support of 13 Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time Plaintiffs’ to Hear Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce 14 Settlement Agreement (“Mengarelli Dem”). 15 II. FACTS 16 On October 10, 2019, the parties, comprised of Plaintiffs, RCWC, Wehmeyer, Robert C. 17 18 Wehmeyer Design, Inc., dba. Wehmeyer Design (“RCWD”), American Contractors Indemnity 19 Company (“ACIC”) and Monarca Roofing, Inc. (“Monarca”), appeared at a mandatmy settlement 20 conference before Judge Grandsaert. (Mengarelli Dec., 4.) A week after the settlement conference, 1] 21 the parties agreed to a full settlement of this matter. (Mengarelli Dec., Thereafter, on October fl 4.) 22 21, 2019, counsel for Plainfiffs circulated a draft settlement agreement. (Mengarelli Dec., 1[ 5.) The 23 agreement was negotiated over the next three months, with a final drafi circulated to all counsel on 24 25 January 14, 2020. (Mengarelli Dec., 1] 5.) Pursuant to tile terms of the Settlement Agreement, RCWC 26 and Monarca agreed to pay Plaintiffs a total of $200,000 within 30 days, RCWC agreed to release the 27 mechanics’ lien and lis pendens, and all parties agreed to dismiss the entire action. (Mengarelli Dec., 28 fl 6.) 29 Plaintiffs signed the Settlement Agreement on January 16, 2020; counsel for RCWC, RCWD, 30 ACIC, and Wehmeyer, Brian W. Newcomb, approved the form of the Settlement Agreement on 31 3 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR PLAINTFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT January 17, 2020; Monarca signed on January 22, 2020; and RCWC and Wehmeyer signed on January ~ 24, 2020. (Mengarelli Dec., W 6-9.) ACIC did not sign the Settlement Agreement. According to Mr. Newcomb, ‘who raised this issue for tlie first time on Janualy 3 1, 2020, at WW-QQUIhUJNH 10: 17 p.m., ACIC objected to language in the release section that conflicted with its separate indemnity agreement with RCWC. (Mengarelli Dec., 11 11.) Mr. Newcomb asked that ACIC, a party to the lawsuit, be removed fiom the Settlement Agreement and that it be re-ciroulated for new signatures. (Mengarelli Dec., 1[ 11.) Counsel for Plaintiffs rejected this absurd notion, informing Mr. Newcomb that RCWC and ACIC could enter into a side agreement addressing ACIC’s concerns, but in no event would Plaintiffs agree to remove ACIC fforfi the Settlement Agreement and in no event would they ACIC from the - dismiss lawsuit ifthey did not sign it. (Mengarelli Dec., 1f 12.) On February 6, 2020, Mr. Newcomb circulated a new draft 0f an agreement with ACIC crossed out. (Mengarelli Dec., fl 13.) Counsel for Plaintiffs immediately informed Mr. Newcomb that he rejected this revised agreement and that the Settlement Agreement was fully enforceable against the parties that signed it. (Mengarelli Dec., 1f 13.) Mr. Newcomb, in a transparent attempt to manufacture leverage and avoid a conflict between his clients that he failed to address before approving the form of the Settlement Agreement, informed counsel that he would not record the release of lien or withdrawal chwqmmawmucmeREEBSKS of lis pendens until the issue between his clients was resolved. (Mengarelli Dec, 1] 16.) On February 10, 2020, Plaintiffs received a check from Monarca for their share ofthe settlement proceeds. (Mengarelli Dec., 11 14.) On February 28, 2020, counsel for RCWC’s insurance company, Albert T. Finch, III, informed counsel for Plaintiffs that his ofiice had mailed a check for RCWC’S mwNNN‘NNNNNNNHn-s share of the settlement proceeds, but the parties later discovered that the check had been mailed to counsel’s old office address; Plaintiffs await receipt ofthe check. (Mengarelli Dec., 1] 19.) Meanwhile, the mechanics’ lien remains on Plaintiffs property, clouding title. (Mengarelli Dec., 1] 20.) Plaintiffs are in the process of applying to refinance their mortgage and the existence of the lien will preclude that. (Declaration of Matthew Squires in Support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time t0 Hear Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (“Squires Dec.”),1] 6.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs need the lien released now; they cannot wait until the court can 4 NOTICE 0F PLAINTIFFS’ Ex PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME T0 HEAR PLAINTFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT hear their motion to enforce the settlement agreement 0:1 its regular schedule for available hearing dates for noticed motions. (Squires Dec., 1I 7.) III. LEGAL ARGUMENT \OOOQGU‘IALNNH A court may, 0n application supported by a declaration showing good cause, shorten the time for filing and selvice of papers for a motion. (Cal. Ru]es of Comt, lule 3. 130003).) In order t0 obtain ex part6 relieffor such a motion, an applicant “must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based 0n personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relier .” (Cal. Rules of Coun, rule 3.1202 . . . (0).). Here, Plaintiffs seek ex part6 reliefto shorten the time to file and argue their motion to enforce the settlement agreement because litigating the motion on the court’s regular first—afiailable motion calendar precludes Plaintiffs’ from applying t0 refinance their mortgage now, which would expose them lrise to the risk that interest rates will by the time the mechanics’ lien clouding title t0 their property is released. Despite the fact that RCWC was required pursuant to the Settlement Agreement to immediately release the lien, RCWC is refusing to do it. A lien creates a cloud on title and California courts recognize that damages accrue when the cloud is not legally supported. (See e.g. Seeley v. Seymour (1987) 190 Ca1.App.3d 844, 857.) Thus, Plaintiffs are being damaged by RCWC refusing to perform its obligations under the Settlement Agreement, and waiting an additional two months for the Hemmqamamwwaxbasaazasdg relief they are entitled to now risks Plaintiffs losing the very favorable interest rate lock they have received for their mortgage refinance application. (See Squies Dec., 1] 6.) In light of the forgoing, Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause to shorten the time to hear the motion because they face umNNNNNNNNNNr-n irreparable harm if the lien is not released immediately. California Rule of Court, rule 3. 1203 provides that “a party seeking an exparte order must notify all parties no later than 10:00 am. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances thatjustify a shorter time for notice.” Here, counsel for Plaintiffs notified all parties on Monday, March 9, 2020, more than 24 hours before the hearing 0n the application. (See Mengarefli Dec., 1H] 21 ~22.) 5 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR PLAINTFFS’ MOTION T0 ENFORCB SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ‘ IV. CONCLUSION [Q RCWC’s refusal to immediately recorda release of the mechanic’s lien and lis pendens it l‘ecorded UJ against Plaintiffs’ propemy, as it agreed to ‘do in the Settlement Agreement, is preventing Plaintiffs from J=- 'JI refinancing their mortgage and thus causing them irreparable injmy each day the lien remains in place. Ex pane relief granting'Plaintiffs a shofiened schedule to have their motion to enforce. the Settlement \OOO'QO 10 11 12 13 14 15 Agreement heard Dated: Dated: March March 9, 9, is 2020 2020 wan'anted. By: ( v KEL, Y LITIGATION GROUP, INC: Michael Mengarelli, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross~Defendants, MATTHEW SQUIRES CHAUVEL & GLATT? LLP and NICOLE SQUIRES 16 17 By' g/ April S. Glam, Esq. 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cfoss—Defendants, 19 MATTHEW SQUIRES' and NICOLE SQUIRES 20 21 22 23, 24 25 26 27 28 29 30‘ 31 6 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTBNING TIME TO HEAR PLAINTFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT