arrow left
arrow right
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
  • Jarvis, Todd Henry vs. Calder, Robin Elizabeth Other Tort: Other Non PI/PD/WD (35) document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 Port J. Parker (SBN 179256) Jeffrey S. Einsohn (SBN 260150) 2 PARKER LAW GROUP ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 11/04/2020 3 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1230 4 Sacramento, CA 95815 Telephone: (916) 996-0400 5 Facsimile: (916) 668-5760 6 Attorneys for TODD JARVIS 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 11 GROUP 555 Capitol Ma ll, Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814 TODD HENRY JARVIS, Case No. SCV0039929 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 13 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER BIFURCATING TRIAL LAW 14 ROBIN ELIZABETH CALDER, aka ROBIN GOODNO CALDER, ROBIN CALDER, 15 ROBIN ELIZABETH GOODNO CALDER, Date: November 9, 2020 PARKER and ROBIN GOODNO Time: 8:30 a.m. 16 Dept: TBD Defendant. 17 Complaint Filed: August 23, 2017 Current Trial Date: November 9, 2020 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Defendant Robin Calder’s Motion to Bifurcate is untimely as to statute of limitations, literally 21 puts the cart before the horse in asking the Court to try the issue of statute of limitations before 22 determining which statute of limitations would even apply (or whether there are grounds for tolling 23 based on Calder’s ongoing misleading statements and legal advice, as well as ongoing representation), 24 and would do nothing but over complicate and increase the cost of this trial. 25 II. CALDER’S REQUEST TO BIFURCATE ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS 26 UNTIMELY 27 On March 3, 2020, Calder filed a motion for judgment on the pleading and in the alternative 28 to bifurcate on the issue of the existence of an attorney-client privilege. Importantly, Calder did not PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER BIFURCATING TRIAL 1 1 raise the statute of limitations with respect to either judgment on the pleadings or to bifurcation. 2 The Court denied both aspects of the motion. With respect to bifurcation on the issue of the 3 existence of an attorney-client relationship, the Court did so without prejudice to Calder renewing that 4 request at the time of trial. The Court did not order that Calder could come up with a new scheme to 5 trifurcate the case and spring it on Plaintiff Todd Jarvis in a motion in limine. 6 Motions to bifurcate (or in this case trifurcate) are governed by Code Civ. Proc. § 598. While 7 trial courts are afforded considerable discretion in bifurcating trials, if a party wants to make such a 8 motion, it must set the matter so it is heard and an order issued either by the pretrial conference. (Id.) 9 In this case, Calder only made such a motion with respect to bifurcating on the attorney-client 10 relationship issue, not statute of limitations. 11 Calder served the instant motion to bifurcate with her motions in limine. Although not styled GROUP 555 Capitol Ma ll, Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814 12 or numbered as a motion in limine, procedurally that is what it is. Local Rule 20.4(H) explicitly states: 13 “A motion in limine shall not be used for the purpose of seeking an order to try an issue before the LAW 14 trial of another issue or issues. Such motions may only be made in compliance with Code of Civil 15 Procedure section 598.” Calder has not complied with the Local Rule either. PARKER 16 III. TRYING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE FIRST MAKES NO SENSE 17 AND IS UNWORKABLE 18 Setting aside the untimeliness of the request to bifurcate on the issue of statute of limitations, 19 the Court should not exercise its own discretion to do so. Calder argues that the one-year statute of 20 limitations found in Code Civ. Proc. 340.6 for professional negligence claims applies to all of the 21 causes of action.1 She then summarily concludes that she did not represent Jarvis at the time of the 22 subject transaction, so his claims are time barred. At the same time, she acknowledges that there is a 23 dispute as to whether an attorney-client relationship existed at that time, which she wants decided after 24 the Court applies the statute of limitations applicable to claims against one’s attorney. How could the 25 Court possibly apply section 340.6 or any other statute of limitations that allows for tolling without 26 having fully evaluated the nature of the parties’ disputed relationship? It cannot. It would be putting 27 1 Calder is incorrect.As set forth in Jarvis’s trial brief, there is no statute of limitation against one in possession of land 28 and claims under Rule of Professional Conduct 3-300 are subject to a four-year statute with tolling. (See Ferguson v. Yaspan (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 676, 682.) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER BIFURCATING TRIAL 2 1 the cart before the horse. 2 Further, resolving any statute of limitations defense, especially with respect to section 340.6, 3 would require extensive testimony about what Calder told Jarvis with respect to the subject property 4 and why he was justified in relying on her. This again implicates issues that Calder wants tried in a 5 second of three phases of trial. All that will do is further complicate this case and lead to repetitive 6 testimony. 7 IV. BIFURCATING ON THE EXISTENCE OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT 8 RELATIONSHIP WOULD NOT RESOLVE THE CASE OR EVEN NARROW 9 REMAINING ISSUES SIGNIFICANTLY 10 There is no point to bifurcating the existence of an attorney-client relationship and trying that 11 first (or second). Even if Calder somehow convinces the Court that she was merely a “consultant” or GROUP 555 Capitol Ma ll, Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814 12 “advisor” (or that she was providing what her attorney calls non-attorney legal services) it would not 13 matter. Calder would still not be allowed to stay on title to the property. It is indisputable that Calder LAW 14 was acting as Jarvis’s agent in some capacity, even if just as a legal or real estate advisor. As his 15 agent, Calder owed Jarvis fiduciary duties. (See Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (2003) PARKER 16 106 Cal.App.4th 257, 271; see also Persson v. Smart Inventions, Inc. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1141, 17 1160; Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 632–633.) 18 “Unquestionably, an agent undertakes fiduciary obligations with respect to his principal.” (Recorded 19 Picture Co. v. Nelson Entertainment, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 350, 369–370.) 20 “[W]hen rendering professional services that involve a fiduciary relationship, a member of the 21 State Bar must conform to the professional standards of a lawyer even if the services performed could 22 also be rendered by one licensed in a different profession.” (State Bar Formal Opinion No. 1995-141.) 23 In other words, the same rules apply to attorneys who enter into attorney-client relationships with 24 clients and those who assume a position of trust and confidence without a technical attorney-client 25 relationship. This has been cited and explained to Calder and her counsel, yet this simple truth seems 26 to allude them.2 27 2 This underscores the need for testimony from David Boyd, who was on the State Bar’s ethics committee and can further 28 explain what ethical obligations Calder would have as an attorney fiduciary, even if not acting in the context of a technical attorney-client relationship. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER BIFURCATING TRIAL 3 1 Thus, regardless of whether the Court concludes an attorney-client relationship existed, or 2 when itsstart and end dates were, Jarvis would still have to put on the rest of his case and Calder 3 would have to put on the rest of her defense. 4 V. BIFURCATION OR TRIFURCATION WILL MAKE THE TRIAL MORE 5 COMPLICATED AND CAUSE IT TO TAKE LONGER 6 Bifurcating will not streamline the trial; it will complicate it and make it more expensive. 7 Multiple witnesses, including Calder, would have to be called multiple times. By way of example, 8 expert CPA and forensic fraud examiner Annette Stalker has been designated as a witness. One of the 9 topics Jarvis intends to present her on is payments made to Calder for legal services prior to the 10 transactions at issue. That testimony is relevant to multiple issues including the existence of an 11 attorney-client relationship and in turn the statute of limitations. Jarvis would like to have all of Ms. GROUP 555 Capitol Ma ll, Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814 12 Stalker’s testimony given at one time so as to avoid paying for multiple days of testimony and/or 13 standby time. If the matter is bifurcated (or trifurcated), Ms. Stalker will potentially have to come LAW 14 back on different days to testify about other issues such as damages, or to authenticate documents that 15 are relevant to different issues. Allowing Ms. Stalker, and other witnesses with testimony relevant to PARKER 16 more than one issue, a small amount of additional time to finish their testimony will ultimately save 17 considerable time for the parties and the Court, as well as expense to Jarvis. 18 Additionally, because the parties’ relationship in this matter lasted for 15 years or more, the 19 most understandable way to present the evidence is chronologically. If the case is bifurcated, that will 20 be virtually impossible, requiring the Court to actively follow testimony regarding events in the early 21 2000s, then in 2015, then in 2004, and then back to 2009. It will make the evidence and narrative of 22 the case extremely difficult for the Court to follow. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER BIFURCATING TRIAL 4 1 VI. CONCLUSION 2 This case is being tried to the Court. At Calder's request, Jarvis waived the right to a jury trial 3 to streamline and simplify the trial. The Court is more than capable of considering, and should 4 consider, all of the evidence before ruling on Calder's defenses. Bifurcation or trifurcation is inimical 5 to that or to an orderly, efficient trial. The motion should be denied. 6 7 DATED: November i ,2020 PARKER LAW GROUP ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 8 9 10 PORT J. Pr1.1.'\..n,ILJL'f JEFFREYS. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER BIFURCATING TRIAL 5