On December 30, 2019 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Mcpeters, Janice,
and
Doe Corporation,
Does 1 Through 25, Inclusive,
Roe Partnership,
Younger, Kelly Lauren,
for (22) Unlimited Auto
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
Case Number: 19-CIV-07684
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080
www.sanmateocourt.org
Minute Order
Janice McPeters vs. Kelly Lauren Younger, et al 19-CIV-07684
10/19/2020 1:30 PM
Motion for Order
Hearing Result: Held
Judicial Officer: Fineman, Nancy L. Location: Courtroom 8B
Courtroom Clerk: Ashmika Segran-Teo Courtroom Reporter: Valerie Cathey
Minutes
Journals
- Matter was called at: 1:39 pm.
Counsel Marilyn Nelson for Plaintiff Janice McPeters appeared by CourtCall.
Counsel David Streza for Defendant Kelly Younger appeared by CourtCall.
Argument presented by counsel. Matter submitted.
Having considered the submitted matter, the court rules as follows: Tentative ruling was adopted by the
Court.
Counsel for Defendant to prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's
signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to
all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.
Hearing concluded at: 1:45 pm.
Case Events
- Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:
JANICE MCPETERS' MOTION FOR RESCISSION OF VOIDABLE WRITTEN RELEASE
Plaintiff Janice McPeters’ “Motion for Rescission of Voidable Written Release,” filed 7-
22-20, is DENIED. By this motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to rescind/invalidate as a
matter of law the Release agreement that Plaintiff signed on 8-12-19, on grounds that (a)
Defendant procured Plaintiff’s signature on the Release through fraud/misrepresentation,
and (b) Plaintiff only signed it due to her unilateral mistake. Civ. Code § 1689. Based on
the evidence presented with this motion, the Court cannot rescind the Release on either of
these bases. The Court also questions the statutory and/or legal authority for this motion
as none is provided in the notice of motion or the memorandum of points and authorities.
It appears that the issue should be resolved by summary judgment or trial. Since
Defendant does not object on procedural grounds, however, the Court addresses the
substance of the motion.
First, the proffered evidence does not support as a matter of law Plaintiff’s contention that
1
Case Number: 19-CIV-07684
Mr. Gonzales, the claims adjuster who interacted with Plaintiff, misrepresented
Defendant’s policy limits. Gonzales’ supporting declaration (10-5-20 Streza Decl., Ex.
B) states he did not misrepresent the policy limits. Further, Plaintiff was deposed on this
very point, but contrary to what Plaintiff argues in the present motion, Plaintiff did not
testify under oath that Gonzales misrepresented the policy limits. Rather, Plaintiff
testified Gonzales stated he could offer Plaintiff $25,000 from the policy to settle the
case. See 10-5-20 Streza Decl., Ex. D (Plaintiff testifying Gonzales told her that “From
the policy I can offer you 25,000 right now.”). Thus, the evidence before the Court
appears to undermine, rather than support, Plaintiff’s allegation of
fraud/misrepresentation. At a minimum, the Court cannot decide this issue in Plaintiff’s
favor via this motion.
Nor can the Court summarily rescind/invalidate the Release based on Plaintiff’s alleged
mistaken belief that the policy limits were $25,000, or her mistaken belief that she would
be able to keep the entire $25,000 because she misunderstood the Release language
relating to liens. This argument confronts several obstacles. First, the Release itself
expressly states that Plaintiff will be responsible for all liens, including medical and
Worker’s Compensation liens. See 10-5-20 Streze Decl., Ex. A. The notarized Release
also states that “THE UNDERSIGNED HAS READ THE FOREGOING RELEASE
AND FULLY UNDERSTANDS IT.” Id. Plaintiff’s “mistake” argument appears to boil
down to her contention that she is an unsophisticated lay person who (at the time) was
unrepresented by counsel, and rushed into signing a Release that she did not fully
understand. This argument is contrary to the policy that one is charged with reading and
understanding that she signs. Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th
1565, 1589. Further, the argument runs head-on into California’s strong public policy of
encouraging settlements and recognizing their finality. Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151
Cal.App.4th 1355, 1359. Based on the evidence presented, the Court cannot summarily
rescind the Release due to Plaintiff’s alleged mistake. Civ. Code § 1689.
Others
Comments:
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
November 20, 2020 9:00 AM Case Management Conference
Case Management Conferences, -
2
Document Filed Date
October 19, 2020
Case Filing Date
December 30, 2019
Category
(22) Unlimited Auto
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Case Number: 19-CIV-07684 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org Minute Order Janice McPeters vs. Kelly Lauren Younger, et al 19-CIV-07684 10/19/2020 1:30 PM Motion for Order Hearing Result: Held Judicial Officer: Fineman, Nancy L. Location: Courtroom 8B Courtroom Clerk: Ashmika Segran-Teo Courtroom Reporter: Valerie Cathey Minutes Journals - Matter was called at: 1:39 pm. Counsel Marilyn Nelson for Plaintiff Janice McPeters appeared by CourtCall. Counsel David Streza for Defendant Kelly Younger appeared by CourtCall. Argument presented by counsel. Matter submitted. Having considered the submitted matter, the court rules as follows: Tentative ruling was adopted by the Court. Counsel for Defendant to prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. Hearing concluded at: 1:45 pm. Case Events - Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order: JANICE MCPETERS' MOTION FOR RESCISSION OF VOIDABLE WRITTEN RELEASE Plaintiff Janice McPeters’ “Motion for Rescission of Voidable Written Release,” filed 7- 22-20, is DENIED. By this motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to rescind/invalidate as a matter of law the Release agreement that Plaintiff signed on 8-12-19, on grounds that (a) Defendant procured Plaintiff’s signature on the Release through fraud/misrepresentation, and (b) Plaintiff only signed it due to her unilateral mistake. Civ. Code § 1689. Based on the evidence presented with this motion, the Court cannot rescind the Release on either of these bases. The Court also questions the statutory and/or legal authority for this motion as none is provided in the notice of motion or the memorandum of points and authorities. It appears that the issue should be resolved by summary judgment or trial. Since Defendant does not object on procedural grounds, however, the Court addresses the substance of the motion. First, the proffered evidence does not support as a matter of law Plaintiff’s contention that 1 Case Number: 19-CIV-07684 Mr. Gonzales, the claims adjuster who interacted with Plaintiff, misrepresented Defendant’s policy limits. Gonzales’ supporting declaration (10-5-20 Streza Decl., Ex. B) states he did not misrepresent the policy limits. Further, Plaintiff was deposed on this very point, but contrary to what Plaintiff argues in the present motion, Plaintiff did not testify under oath that Gonzales misrepresented the policy limits. Rather, Plaintiff testified Gonzales stated he could offer Plaintiff $25,000 from the policy to settle the case. See 10-5-20 Streza Decl., Ex. D (Plaintiff testifying Gonzales told her that “From the policy I can offer you 25,000 right now.”). Thus, the evidence before the Court appears to undermine, rather than support, Plaintiff’s allegation of fraud/misrepresentation. At a minimum, the Court cannot decide this issue in Plaintiff’s favor via this motion. Nor can the Court summarily rescind/invalidate the Release based on Plaintiff’s alleged mistaken belief that the policy limits were $25,000, or her mistaken belief that she would be able to keep the entire $25,000 because she misunderstood the Release language relating to liens. This argument confronts several obstacles. First, the Release itself expressly states that Plaintiff will be responsible for all liens, including medical and Worker’s Compensation liens. See 10-5-20 Streze Decl., Ex. A. The notarized Release also states that “THE UNDERSIGNED HAS READ THE FOREGOING RELEASE AND FULLY UNDERSTANDS IT.” Id. Plaintiff’s “mistake” argument appears to boil down to her contention that she is an unsophisticated lay person who (at the time) was unrepresented by counsel, and rushed into signing a Release that she did not fully understand. This argument is contrary to the policy that one is charged with reading and understanding that she signs. Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1565, 1589. Further, the argument runs head-on into California’s strong public policy of encouraging settlements and recognizing their finality. Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1359. Based on the evidence presented, the Court cannot summarily rescind the Release due to Plaintiff’s alleged mistake. Civ. Code § 1689. Others Comments: Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings November 20, 2020 9:00 AM Case Management Conference Case Management Conferences, - 2