Preview
MATI'HEWA. HAULK(SBN. 272457)
RAGGHIANTI FREITAS LLP
1101 Fifth AvenuepSuite 100
San Rafael, California 94901
Telephone- (415)453 9433 I
'
f
c
.
Facsimile. (415)453 8269_ R E E .| V E, D
' ' ‘ '
Attorn'ey for Defendants
'
PUNIT K. SARNA and '
OCT 21 2021
' ‘
PUJA'SARNA '- - r '
1
'
‘
CLERK 0F THE SUPERIOR COURT
'
'
SAN MATEO COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
H
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
LOUIS PAYCHECK, _
CASE NO.: 19CIV02595
10
Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
"
.
11
,
_
-
1
‘
PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT
‘
i2 _
vs. A
LOUIS PAYCHECK’S MOTION FOR
-
RECONSIDERATION OF STATEMENT
r
A
'
13 PUNIT K. SARNA, et aI.,- -
b
OF DECISION -
.
I
'. 1'4
Défendants.
15
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.
1'6
17 PIaintiff/Cross- Defendant Louis Paycheck’s Motion for Reconsideration of
18 Statement of Decision came on for hearing on October .,12 2021, at 2. 00 p. m. in
19 Department 4 of the San Mateo County Superior Court before the L.
HonorabIe Nancy
20' Fineman. Matthew A. 'Haqu appeared 'on behalf of Defendant and‘Cro‘ss—
Complainant
21 Punit K Sarna and Puja Sarna. Richard M. Kelly on behalf of
Defendant
appeared ”
22 Plaintiff and Cross- Louis Paycheck.
'
Defendant
t
23 Having read and considered the papers submittedIn support of andIn opposition
to the motion, reviewing the court’ s records for this action, and
24 having heard oral
25 argument of counsel, thecourt orders as followsf As part of its inherent authority, the
Court GRANTS the for reconsideration the Statement of Decision‘and,
26 motion regarding
27 lafter-reConsideration, DENIES the motion. The courtsltentative rulingfor this motion for
28
I
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIoN FOR RECONSIDERATION
reconsideration, attached hereto as ExhibitA‘and incorporated by this reference, is"
hereby adopted as the court’s nal order.
Dated:
The Honorable Nancy L. Fineman
Judge of the SUperiOr‘Court
Approved as to form:
\O -‘ v 20'), \_
’
a
Richara‘ivi.
x
Kelly
\L/ k3
i
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
322
23"
24
25
_
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
. V
>
‘ »
r
‘ .
,
i I) 3
h
. I ’
.V
.
.
i- L . A
y . .
-
.
S I;
'
. .
r I ‘
I
.
I
~ (2»,
‘
\ .
'
.r ,
_ N r
¥ ‘ .
I: I.
j
' -'
.
.I I
/
October 12, 2021 Law and Motion Caléndar PAGE 2
Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEW, Department O4
Case \
Title / Nature of Case
. 2:00
19-CIV—02595 LOUIS PAYCHECK VS. PUNIT K. SARNA, ET AL
LOUIS PAYCHECK RICHARD M. KELLY
PUNIT K. SARNA MATTHEW A. HAULK
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF STATEMENT OF DECISION, CREDIT OF SETTLING
SURETY PARTY AND CROSS-DEFENDANT PREVAILING PARTY ATTORNEYS FEES BY
LOUIS PAYCHECK.
TENTATIVE RULING:
PlaintifCross-Defendant Louis Paycheck (“Paycheckf’) has brought a motion for reconsideration,
which Defendants/Cross-Complainants Punit K. Sama and Sama
Puja_ (“Sama”) oppose.
Paycheck’s notice of motion led August 20, 2021 lists three grounds for the motion: _(1)
Reconsideration of Statement of Decision; (2) Credit of Settling Surety Party; and (3) Cross-
Defendant prevailing party attorneys’ fees. Notice at 2. His memorandum of and
points
authorities, however, only addresses the rst issue, the Statement of Decision: Memorandum of
Points & Authorities inSupport of Motion re: Reconsideration of Statement of Decision led
September 13, 2021;15'The Court does not address the second two issues based upon Paycheck’s
failure to address them in his opening brief. California Rule of Court 3.1 1 12(a)(3), 3.1 1 13; D0 It
UrselfMovz'ng & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkz'ljz & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 35,
superseded by statute on other grounds in Union Bank v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 583
(“A point which is merely suggested by a party's counsel, with no supporting argument or authority,
'
'
is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion”.
As part of its inherent authority, the Court will GRANT the motion for reconsideration regarding
the Statement ofDecision and, after reconsideration, DENIES the motion.
On October 15, 2021, Paycheck led his answer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint with
twenty-four afnnative defenses. None ofthose afrmative defenses were based upon the statute
of limitations. He never sought to amend his answer to add a statute of limitations defense.
Accordingly, he forfeited any statute of limitations defense he may have had. Minton v. Cavaney
(1961) 56‘Cal.2d 576, 581. Moreover, his trial brief led April 19, 2021, and the Court’s notes of
Opening Statement and Closing Argument at trial are devoid of any arguments regarding the statute
of limitations or the afrmative defenses of failure to state a claim or waiver. There is nothing in
Question No. 3 in the Request for Statement of Decision which identies any afrmative defense
or could provide notice to the Court that such afrmative defenses should be considered. However,
when Paycheck objected to the Proposed Statement of Decision, the Courtaddressed the issue.
Statement ofDecision led June 30, 2021 at 16-17. Paycheck’s motion provides no citation to any
,place in the record where the issues of these afrmative defenses were presented to this Court.
October 12, 2021 Law and Motion. PAGE 3
Calendar
Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEBQN, Department 04-
Even if the Court were to consider the issue on the merits, The Court
Paycheck’s arguments fail;
has re—reviewed the evidence introduced at trial and after weighing the
concludes, credibility of
Paycheck Who testied as to different dates that he stopped work, that Paycheck worked through
November 2018, which date Paycheck testied was accurate. Tr. at 103-104
Transcript (based
upon answers to interrogatories, Tr. Ex. 30, Interrogatory No. 23), causes
Accordingly, evenifthe
of action do not relate back (and the Court makes no determination on that issue), Sama’s claim
was not barred by the statute of limitations. the Court of the
Similarly, nds, aer weighing
evidence, that Sarna stated a cause of action and did not'waive this claim.
The Court GRANTS Sarna’s request for judicial notice and DENIES the request
for sanctions.
Ifthe tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order ofthe Court.
Thereafter, counsel "for
.
Sarna shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s for the
ruling Court’s signature,
pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3. 13 12, 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.
Preview
MATI'HEWA. HAULK(SBN. 272457) RAGGHIANTI FREITAS LLP 1101 Fifth AvenuepSuite 100 San Rafael, California 94901 Telephone- (415)453 9433 I ' f c . Facsimile. (415)453 8269_ R E E .| V E, D ' ' ‘ ' Attorn'ey for Defendants ' PUNIT K. SARNA and ' OCT 21 2021 ' ‘ PUJA'SARNA '- - r ' 1 ' ‘ CLERK 0F THE SUPERIOR COURT ' ' SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA H COUNTY OF SAN MATEO LOUIS PAYCHECK, _ CASE NO.: 19CIV02595 10 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING " . 11 , _ - 1 ‘ PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT ‘ i2 _ vs. A LOUIS PAYCHECK’S MOTION FOR - RECONSIDERATION OF STATEMENT r A ' 13 PUNIT K. SARNA, et aI.,- - b OF DECISION - . I '. 1'4 Défendants. 15 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. 1'6 17 PIaintiff/Cross- Defendant Louis Paycheck’s Motion for Reconsideration of 18 Statement of Decision came on for hearing on October .,12 2021, at 2. 00 p. m. in 19 Department 4 of the San Mateo County Superior Court before the L. HonorabIe Nancy 20' Fineman. Matthew A. 'Haqu appeared 'on behalf of Defendant and‘Cro‘ss— Complainant 21 Punit K Sarna and Puja Sarna. Richard M. Kelly on behalf of Defendant appeared ” 22 Plaintiff and Cross- Louis Paycheck. ' Defendant t 23 Having read and considered the papers submittedIn support of andIn opposition to the motion, reviewing the court’ s records for this action, and 24 having heard oral 25 argument of counsel, thecourt orders as followsf As part of its inherent authority, the Court GRANTS the for reconsideration the Statement of Decision‘and, 26 motion regarding 27 lafter-reConsideration, DENIES the motion. The courtsltentative rulingfor this motion for 28 I 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTIoN FOR RECONSIDERATION reconsideration, attached hereto as ExhibitA‘and incorporated by this reference, is" hereby adopted as the court’s nal order. Dated: The Honorable Nancy L. Fineman Judge of the SUperiOr‘Court Approved as to form: \O -‘ v 20'), \_ ’ a Richara‘ivi. x Kelly \L/ k3 i 10 11 12 .13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 322 23" 24 25 _ 26 27 28 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION . V > ‘ » r ‘ . , i I) 3 h . I ’ .V . . i- L . A y . . - . S I; ' . . r I ‘ I . I ~ (2», ‘ \ . ' .r , _ N r ¥ ‘ . I: I. j ' -' . .I I / October 12, 2021 Law and Motion Caléndar PAGE 2 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEW, Department O4 Case \ Title / Nature of Case . 2:00 19-CIV—02595 LOUIS PAYCHECK VS. PUNIT K. SARNA, ET AL LOUIS PAYCHECK RICHARD M. KELLY PUNIT K. SARNA MATTHEW A. HAULK MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF STATEMENT OF DECISION, CREDIT OF SETTLING SURETY PARTY AND CROSS-DEFENDANT PREVAILING PARTY ATTORNEYS FEES BY LOUIS PAYCHECK. TENTATIVE RULING: PlaintifCross-Defendant Louis Paycheck (“Paycheckf’) has brought a motion for reconsideration, which Defendants/Cross-Complainants Punit K. Sama and Sama Puja_ (“Sama”) oppose. Paycheck’s notice of motion led August 20, 2021 lists three grounds for the motion: _(1) Reconsideration of Statement of Decision; (2) Credit of Settling Surety Party; and (3) Cross- Defendant prevailing party attorneys’ fees. Notice at 2. His memorandum of and points authorities, however, only addresses the rst issue, the Statement of Decision: Memorandum of Points & Authorities inSupport of Motion re: Reconsideration of Statement of Decision led September 13, 2021;15'The Court does not address the second two issues based upon Paycheck’s failure to address them in his opening brief. California Rule of Court 3.1 1 12(a)(3), 3.1 1 13; D0 It UrselfMovz'ng & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkz'ljz & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 35, superseded by statute on other grounds in Union Bank v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 583 (“A point which is merely suggested by a party's counsel, with no supporting argument or authority, ' ' is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion”. As part of its inherent authority, the Court will GRANT the motion for reconsideration regarding the Statement ofDecision and, after reconsideration, DENIES the motion. On October 15, 2021, Paycheck led his answer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint with twenty-four afnnative defenses. None ofthose afrmative defenses were based upon the statute of limitations. He never sought to amend his answer to add a statute of limitations defense. Accordingly, he forfeited any statute of limitations defense he may have had. Minton v. Cavaney (1961) 56‘Cal.2d 576, 581. Moreover, his trial brief led April 19, 2021, and the Court’s notes of Opening Statement and Closing Argument at trial are devoid of any arguments regarding the statute of limitations or the afrmative defenses of failure to state a claim or waiver. There is nothing in Question No. 3 in the Request for Statement of Decision which identies any afrmative defense or could provide notice to the Court that such afrmative defenses should be considered. However, when Paycheck objected to the Proposed Statement of Decision, the Courtaddressed the issue. Statement ofDecision led June 30, 2021 at 16-17. Paycheck’s motion provides no citation to any ,place in the record where the issues of these afrmative defenses were presented to this Court. October 12, 2021 Law and Motion. PAGE 3 Calendar Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEBQN, Department 04- Even if the Court were to consider the issue on the merits, The Court Paycheck’s arguments fail; has re—reviewed the evidence introduced at trial and after weighing the concludes, credibility of Paycheck Who testied as to different dates that he stopped work, that Paycheck worked through November 2018, which date Paycheck testied was accurate. Tr. at 103-104 Transcript (based upon answers to interrogatories, Tr. Ex. 30, Interrogatory No. 23), causes Accordingly, evenifthe of action do not relate back (and the Court makes no determination on that issue), Sama’s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. the Court of the Similarly, nds, aer weighing evidence, that Sarna stated a cause of action and did not'waive this claim. The Court GRANTS Sarna’s request for judicial notice and DENIES the request for sanctions. Ifthe tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order ofthe Court. Thereafter, counsel "for . Sarna shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s for the ruling Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3. 13 12, 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.