On November 07, 2018 a
Minutes - Civil -
was filed
involving a dispute between
Pacific Union International, Inc.,
and
Booth, Paul D., Trustee Of The Anything Trust,
Erik Ludwick,
The Anything Trust Dated Oct. 12, 2007,
for Civil-Roseville
in the District Court of Placer County.
Preview
~ -_
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
Date: October 29, 2020 Time: 8:30 AM
Judge: Charles D. Wachob Dept.: LM
Reporter: Clerk:
Pacific Union International, Inc, vs. Ludwick, Erik et al O Present
CO Present
(And related Cross Action(s) Case # S-CV-0042080
Law and Motion Minutes
Proceedings RE: Motion: Other -
Oo by Plaintiff Oo by Defendant
1 by Stipulation [] by Court
(Dropped. O continued to
oO Matter argued and submitted.
C1 submitted on points and authorities without o argument [] appearance.
C1 Motion/Petition granted. [] Motion/Petition denied.
(1 Demurrer C] sustained [1 overruled (J without [J with leave to] amend (answer.
C1 Counsel appointed for:
(Taken under submission.
(1 Debtor is sworn and retired with counsel for examination.
Oo Stipulation to DJudge Pro Tem [_]Commissioner executed in open court.
O counsel for to prepare the written order and submit it to opposing counsel for approval as
to content and form.
other
The tentative ruling is adopted as the ruling of the court, to wit:
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) Relief
In this completely unnecessary motion, defendants seek an order “to strike, invalidate and/or
vacate the August 18, 2020 Order to Continue Trial.”
NA~ a
On August 7, 2020, plaintiff's counsel sent a letter and a proposed stipulation to defense counsel
Nagano to continue the trial date from September 21, 2020 to March 29, 2021. The stipulation
also provided “that discovery be considered closed and that only pre-trial expert discovery
related deadlines dates and deadlines shall be calculated based on the new trial date.” Defense
counsel Nagano signed and returned the stipulation, which was subsequently approved and filed
by the court. Having apparently failed to read the stipulation he signed, Mr. Nagano then
demanded that the stipulation be withdrawn as he had not agreed to close discovery. In support
of this motion Mr. Nagano declares he signed the stipulation due to his "mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect as I relied upon the Plaintiff's attorney's August 7, 2020 letter
while not realizing that the alleged stipulation presented to the Court said something different
then [sic] the Plaintiff's attorney's letter, and something different then [sic] the unseen [proposed]
order, again, each saying something different.” However, overlooking his own mistake in not
reading the stipulation, Mr. Nagano goes an extra mile by leveling an unfounded, blame-shifting
accusation against plaintiff's counsel. He declares “I can only conclude that the discrepancies
between the Plaintiff's attorney's August 7, 2020 letter, the stipulation and [proposed order]
submitted to and filed with the Court on August 12, 2020, and the unseen Ordered signed and
filed by the Court on August 18, 2020 were part of intention, misleading and/or bad faith
tactics.” The accusation is unwarranted. On September 8, 2020, upon request, plaintiff's
counsel signed and returned to defense counsel a hard copy of a stipulation to modify the order
to continue the discovery deadlines. For reasons not clear to plaintiff's counsel or to the court,
however, this stipulation has not been provided to the court by attorney Nagano. Plaintiff's
counsel, having already stipulated, expresses no objection to the court continuing trial-related
dates to track with the already established trial date of March 29, 2021. Indeed, plaintiffs
counsel wonders, as does the court, why this motion was not dropped by defendant. The court
will do what defense counsel should have done — the motion is dropped. The motion is-_ =~
essentially moot as there is no disagreement by the parties. Discovery and motion deadlines will
track with the trial date.
Finally, the court will make no comment or judgment as to which is more concerning — that
defense counsel chooses to make unjustified accusatory remarks about plaintiff's counsel when it
was his own failure to read the stipulation that precipitated this issue — or why defense counsel
did not drop this motion so that the already overburdened court did not have to waste precious
time and resources in considering this unnecessary motion.
Document Filed Date
October 28, 2020
Case Filing Date
November 07, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
~ -_ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER Date: October 29, 2020 Time: 8:30 AM Judge: Charles D. Wachob Dept.: LM Reporter: Clerk: Pacific Union International, Inc, vs. Ludwick, Erik et al O Present CO Present (And related Cross Action(s) Case # S-CV-0042080 Law and Motion Minutes Proceedings RE: Motion: Other - Oo by Plaintiff Oo by Defendant 1 by Stipulation [] by Court (Dropped. O continued to oO Matter argued and submitted. C1 submitted on points and authorities without o argument [] appearance. C1 Motion/Petition granted. [] Motion/Petition denied. (1 Demurrer C] sustained [1 overruled (J without [J with leave to] amend (answer. C1 Counsel appointed for: (Taken under submission. (1 Debtor is sworn and retired with counsel for examination. Oo Stipulation to DJudge Pro Tem [_]Commissioner executed in open court. O counsel for to prepare the written order and submit it to opposing counsel for approval as to content and form. other The tentative ruling is adopted as the ruling of the court, to wit: Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) Relief In this completely unnecessary motion, defendants seek an order “to strike, invalidate and/or vacate the August 18, 2020 Order to Continue Trial.” NA~ a On August 7, 2020, plaintiff's counsel sent a letter and a proposed stipulation to defense counsel Nagano to continue the trial date from September 21, 2020 to March 29, 2021. The stipulation also provided “that discovery be considered closed and that only pre-trial expert discovery related deadlines dates and deadlines shall be calculated based on the new trial date.” Defense counsel Nagano signed and returned the stipulation, which was subsequently approved and filed by the court. Having apparently failed to read the stipulation he signed, Mr. Nagano then demanded that the stipulation be withdrawn as he had not agreed to close discovery. In support of this motion Mr. Nagano declares he signed the stipulation due to his "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect as I relied upon the Plaintiff's attorney's August 7, 2020 letter while not realizing that the alleged stipulation presented to the Court said something different then [sic] the Plaintiff's attorney's letter, and something different then [sic] the unseen [proposed] order, again, each saying something different.” However, overlooking his own mistake in not reading the stipulation, Mr. Nagano goes an extra mile by leveling an unfounded, blame-shifting accusation against plaintiff's counsel. He declares “I can only conclude that the discrepancies between the Plaintiff's attorney's August 7, 2020 letter, the stipulation and [proposed order] submitted to and filed with the Court on August 12, 2020, and the unseen Ordered signed and filed by the Court on August 18, 2020 were part of intention, misleading and/or bad faith tactics.” The accusation is unwarranted. On September 8, 2020, upon request, plaintiff's counsel signed and returned to defense counsel a hard copy of a stipulation to modify the order to continue the discovery deadlines. For reasons not clear to plaintiff's counsel or to the court, however, this stipulation has not been provided to the court by attorney Nagano. Plaintiff's counsel, having already stipulated, expresses no objection to the court continuing trial-related dates to track with the already established trial date of March 29, 2021. Indeed, plaintiffs counsel wonders, as does the court, why this motion was not dropped by defendant. The court will do what defense counsel should have done — the motion is dropped. The motion is-_ =~ essentially moot as there is no disagreement by the parties. Discovery and motion deadlines will track with the trial date. Finally, the court will make no comment or judgment as to which is more concerning — that defense counsel chooses to make unjustified accusatory remarks about plaintiff's counsel when it was his own failure to read the stipulation that precipitated this issue — or why defense counsel did not drop this motion so that the already overburdened court did not have to waste precious time and resources in considering this unnecessary motion.