California Code of Regulations|§ 3 - Delegation of Authority

In the pending motion, Miller indicates that, pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, they agreed to have removed from the public record section 3 (pages 8-11) of the Fee Order. (Motion at 3:6-11.) Miller contends that he gave up his right to appeal the Fee Order with the express understanding that section 3 of the Fee Order would be removed from the public record. Id.) Miller now moves for an order vacating and/or sealing section 3 of the Fee Order. The motion is unopposed.

Singer fails to demonstrate that (1) Lumar’s payment of $120,000 in fees and costs was a condition precedent to his transfer of Parcel B to Atico under Section 3(d); and (2) based on the evidence presented on this motion, including the language of 3(d), his interpretation of Section 3(d) is reasonable. In contrast, Lumar’s interpretation of its obligation under Section 3(d) is reasonable based on the express language of Section 3(d).

Section 3 is, by its terms, an agreement between Shelton and an entity named TriNet. Fenn does not explain who “TriNet” is or how it relates to Shelton’s employment in its motion. Fenn’s name appears only in a header to Section 3 where it is identified as the “client”. Section 3 is not signed by Fenn. Section 3 is signed only by Shelton. There is no signature line for TriNet or any other party.