Llc Vs S or C Corporation in California - DOC by arn15708

VIEWS: 22 PAGES: 17

Llc Vs S or C Corporation in California document sample

More Info
									 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8                     SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 9                            FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
10                                        )                Case No.: 1268063 (Consolidated with Case
      JEM SERVICES, INC., a California    )                No. 1310287)
11    Corporation                         )
                                          )                COMPLEX CASE MANAGEMENT
12                                        )                ORDER,
                          Plaintiff,      )
13    vs.                                 )                ASSIGNED JUDGE: Hon. James W Brown
                                          )                DEPARTMENT:     Four
14    NARANG ACQUISITION GROUP, LLC; )                     HEARING DATE: February 10, 2010
      NARANG HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, et al., )                TIME:           3:00 pm
15                                        )
                          Defendant.      )
16                                        )
                                          )
17                                        )
      AND RELATED ACTION AND CROSS- )
18    ACTIONS                             )
                                          )
19

20
                 On July 8, 2009 the Court made and entered an Order of Designation as a Complex

21
     Case designating JEM Services, Inc. v. Narang Acquisition Group, LLC, et al., Case No.

22
     1268063 as a complex case. Subsequently the Court de-designated the cases as complex litigation and
     set it and related cases on the regular Case Management Conference calendar. Subsequent events
23
     convinced the Court that the case should have remained designated as complex litigation. On September
24
     23, 2009 the Court re-designated these cases as complex and set a Complex Case Management Conference
25
     for November 4, 2009.
26

27
                 On February 10, 2010 a complex case management conference was conducted in

28
     this matter. An unofficial copy of this Order may be posted on the Court’s web page at



                                         Complex Case Management Order - 1
 1   http://www.sbCourts.org/general_info/judicial_officers/jbrown/ as a convenience to Court
 2   and counsel, but the filed order entered by the Court is the only operative order. The parties
 3   stipulate and agree that the e-mail by the Court to the e-mail address provided by counsel
 4   is equivalent to service as of the date of the e-mail and further notice of this Order is
 5   waived.
 6   1. SEVERANCE, CONSOLIDATION OR COORDINATION (App. to CRC, Div I,
 7      §19(e)(2))
 8
           1.1.      Severance
 9
           1.2.      Consolidation
10                   The following cases are consolidated:
11                   JEM Services, Inc. v. Narang Acquisition Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 1268063;
12   Blum & Sons Electric, Inc. v. JEM Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1310287; Colortrends of
13   California, Inc. v. Narang Acquisition Group, LLC et al., Case No. 1304929, with all cross-
14   complaints filed in such actions (collectively “Contractors’ Actions”). .
15                   First Regional Bank v. Narang Acquisition Group, LLC, et al., Santa Barbara
16   Superior Court Case No. 1304849 (“Bank’s Action”) is a consolidated case.
17                   JEM Services, Inc. v. Narang Acquisition Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 1268063
18   is designated the lead case.
19         1.3.      Coordination
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




                                        Complex Case Management Order - 2
 1   2. STATUS OF THE PARTIES AND PLEADINGS
 2
            2.1.       Current Status
 3     Operative Pleading: JEM Services, Inc. v. Narang Acquisition Group, LLC, et al. (“JEM Action”)

 4               Party Plaintiff                                       Parties Defendant
       JEM Services, Inc.
 5

 6               Party Defendant            Served      Severed   Demurrer      Answer     Dismissed   Judgment
                                                                  Motion to
                                                                   Strike
 7
       Narang Acquisition Group, LLC        x                                   x
 8     Narang Holdings Group, LLC           x                                   x
       First Regional Bank                  x                                   x
 9     Lawyers Title Company                x                                                          Default

10

11     Operative Pleading: Cross-Action in JEM Action: Narang Acquisition Group, LLC and Narang Holdings
       Group, LLC v. JEM Services, Inc., et al
12
           Party Cross-Complainants                                    Parties Defendant
13     Narang Acquisition Group, LLC
       Narang Holdings Group, LLC
14
             Party Cross-Defendants         Served      Severed   Demurrer      Answer     Dismissed   Judgment
                                                                  Motion to
15                                                                 Strike

16     JEM Services, Inc.                   x                     x*                       1/19/10
       Surety Company of the Pacific        x                     x                        1/19/10
17     Paul J. Winchester Framing           x                                              1/19/10
       A. J. Precision Concrete, Inc.       x                                              1/19/10
18     Challenge Asphalt, Inc.              x                                              1/19/10
       Quality Plastering, Inc.             x                                              1/19/10
19     Blum & Sons Electric, Inc.           x                     x                        1/19/10
       M&M Mechanical , Inc.                x                                              1/19/10
       Petersen-Dean, Inc.                  x                                              1/19/10
20
       Colortrends Painting Company         x                     x                        1/19/10
21

22                  The second amended cross-complaint filed by Narang Acquisition Group, LLC and

23   Narang Holdings Group, LLC was dismissed with prejudice on January 19, 2010.

24                  On January 14, 2009, the Court sustained a demurrer by JEM Services, Inc. to

25   several causes of action, allowing the Narang entities leave to amend some of the causes of

26   action by February 2, 2009. At the same, the Court overruled the demurrer by Surety Company

27   of the Pacific, and ordered that said cross-defendant shall have 30 days to file an answer to the

28   second amended cross-complaint, unless it is served with a third amended cross-complaint at



                                                Complex Case Management Order - 3
 1   which time the time for pleading shall then be determined by the date of service. Consistent
 2   rulings were made on demurrers by several subcontractors named as cross-defendants. Counsel
 3   for JEM and Surety Company of the Pacific agreed with counsel for the Narang entities that
 4   answers to the causes of action in the second amended cross-complaint that were not affected by
 5   the demurrers or the Court’s ruling need not be filed because of the Narang entities plan to file a
 6   third amended cross-complaint and that responsive pleadings would be filed to that third
 7   amended cross-complaint. However, on January 16, 2009, Narang Holdings Group, LLC
 8   (“Holdings”) filed a petition for bankruptcy and thereafter Narang Acquisition Group, LLC
 9   (“Acquisition”) filed a petition for bankruptcy. On June 30, 2009, the bankruptcy court granted
10   JEM’s motion for relief of the automatic stay. The Bankruptcy Court orders were filed on June
11   30, 2009 in Acquisition’s bankruptcy action and on July 2, 2009 in Holding’s bankruptcy action.
12   Thus, the time period for amendment of the second amended cross-complaint has passed without
13   amendment
14                The time to file further responsive pleadings to the second amended cross-complaint
15   has been extended pursuant to Court order through the date of the CMC on November 4, 2009
16   because counsel announced at the CMC on September 23, 2009 that there was an agreement to
17   dismiss the second amended cross-complaint, subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court. An
18   agreement to dismiss has not yet been submitted to the Bankruptcy Court by the Narang entities
19   because after September 23, 2009 CMC, the Narang entities requested the addition of further
20   terms to that dismissal agreement. JEM contends that the Dismissal Agreement is enforceable as
21   is; the Narang entities dispute that.
22                Counsel for the Narang entities announced at the Complex Case Management
23   Conference on December 9, 2009 that the second amended cross-complaint will be dismissed
24   and the Narang entities have agreed to dismiss their second amended cross-complaint
25

26

27

28




                                         Complex Case Management Order - 4
 1

 2     Operative Pleading: Cross-Complaint in JEM Action: JEM Services, Inc. v. Paul Winchester
       Corporation, dba Paul J. Winchester Framing, et al.
 3
          Party Cross-Complainant                                      Parties Defendant
 4     JEM Services, Inc.

 5
            Party Cross-Defendant            Served      Severed     Demurrer      Answer    Dismissed     Judgment
                                                                     Motion to
 6
                                                                      Strike

 7     Paul Winchester Construction, Inc.,                                                   1/21/10
       dba Paul J. Winchester Framing          X
 8     Petersen-Dean, Inc.                     X                                             1/21/10
        Quality Plastering, Inc.               X                                             1/21/10
 9      AGS Wall Systems, Inc.                                                               1/21/10
        A.J. Precsion Concrete, Inc.           X                                             1/21/10
10     Punam Prajapati, dba Praja                                                            1/21/10
       Construction
11

12
                    The cross-complaint for indemnification filed by JEM Services, Inc.l was dismissed
13
     without prejudice on January 21, 2010.
14
                    The cross-complaint for indemnification filed by JEM Services, Inc.l was dismissed
15
     without prejudice on January 21, 2010.
16
                    JEM’s counsel has announced that upon dismissal of the Narang entities’ second
17
     amended cross-complaint, JEM’s cross-complaint for indemnity will be dismissed without
18
     prejudice.
19
       Operative Pleading: Cross-Complaint in JEM Action: A. J. Precision Concrete, Cross-complainant, v.
       JEM Services, Inc.
20
             Party Cross-Complainant                                      Parties Defendant
21     A. J. Precision Concrete, Inc.

22
             Party Cross-Defendant             Served      Severed     Demurrer     Answer     Dismissed     Judgment
23                                                                     Motion to
                                                                        Strike
24
       JEM Services, Inc.**                    x
25

26

27

28




                                                   Complex Case Management Order - 5
 1

 2     Operative Pleading: Cross-Complaint in JEM Action: A. J. Precision Concrete, Cross-complainant, v.
       JEM Services, Inc.
 3
             Party Cross-Complainant                                   Parties Defendant
 4     A. J. Precision Concrete, Inc.

 5
             Party Cross-Defendant            Served     Severed   Demurrer     Answer     Dismissed   Judgment
                                                                   Motion to
 6
                                                                    Strike

 7     JEM Services, Inc.**                  x

 8

 9

10                  **JEM Services, Inc. has not yet filed a responsive pleading because an open
11   extension subject to 15 days written notice was granted
12

13     Operative Pleading: Blum & Sons Electric, Inc. v. JEM Services, Inc., et al.

14              Party Plaintiff                                        Parties Defendant
       Blum & Sons Electric, Inc.
15

                 Party Defendant              Served     Severed   Demurrer     Answer     Dismissed   Judgment
16
                                                                   Motion to
                                                                    Strike
17
       JEM Services, Inc. ***
18     Narang Acquisitions Group, LLC        x
       Narang Holding Group, LLC             x
19

20
                    ***JEM Services, Inc. has not been served with this pleading and believes that it
21
     will not be served
22

23

24

25

26

27

28




                                                 Complex Case Management Order - 6
 1

 2     Operative Pleading: Colortrends of California, Inc. v. Narang Acquisition Group, LLC, et al.

 3                Party Plaintiff                                     Parties Defendant
       Colortrends of California, Inc.
 4

 5               Party Defendant             Served      Severed   Demurrer     Answer    Dismissed   Judgment
                                                                   Motion to
                                                                    Strike
 6
       Narang Acquisition Group              x
 7     Narang Holdings Group, LLC            x
       First Regional Bank                                                      x
 8     Lawyers Title Company
       JEM Services, Inc. ****                                                            x
 9

10                  ****JEM Services, Inc. has not been served with this pleading and believes that it
11   will not be served.
12

13     Operative Pleading: First Regional Bank v. Narang Acquisition Group, LLC, Santa Barbara Superior
       Court Case No. 1304849
14
                  Party Plaintiff                                     Parties Defendant
15     First Regional Bank


16
                 Party Defendant             Served      Severed   Demurrer     Answer    Dismissed   Judgment
                                                                   Motion to
17                                                                  Strike

18     Narang Acquisition Group, LLC         x
       Narang Holdings Group, LLC            x
19     Naresh Narang                         x

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




                                                 Complex Case Management Order - 7
 1

 2     Operative Pleading:

 3                 Party Plaintiff                              Parties Defendant

 4

 5              Party Defendant           Served   Severed   Demurrer    Answer     Dismissed   Judgment
                                                             Motion to
                                                              Strike
 6

 7

 8
            2.2.        Deadline and Orders on the Status of Parties and Pleadings
 9                      Time to file and serve responsive pleading to pleadings previously served in these
10   consolidated cases and related cases is extended on all cross-complaints until further order of the
11   Court.Appearance on the cross-complaints is not necessary to complete discovery on the lien
12   priority issue or on the trial of that issue. Upon dismissal of the Narang entities’ second
13   amended cross-complaint, further appearance on the cross-complaints will not be necessary
14
            2.3.        Cross-Actions Deemed Filed, Served And Answered
15          2.4.        Pleadings Deemed Filed
16          2.5.        Express Indemnity Claims
17                  JEM Services, Inc. has contractual claims for express indemnity and defense based
18   on subcontracts against all subcontractors hired for Lavender Court. However, until the Narang
19   entities decide whether they are going to prosecute the remaining causes of action on the second
20   amended cross-complaint However, the Narang entities have agreed to dismiss their second
21   amended cross-complaint and therefore it is not anticipated that appearances on JEM’s cross-
22   complaint will be necessary.
23

24

25

26

27

28




                                           Complex Case Management Order - 8
 1

 2   3. COUNSEL
 3
            3.1.      Master Counsel List
 4                    The master list of counsel, their e-mail addresses and the parties is: (App. to CRC,
 5   Div I, §19(e)(11)):
 6           NAME                         E-MAIL ADDRESS                 PARTY
             Eric C. Kitchen              eric@eckitchenlaw.com          Narang Acquisition Group, LLC and Narang
 7                                                                       Holdings Group, LLC
             Monty H. Amyx                montyamyx@verizon.net          A. J. Precision Concrete, Inc.
 8
             Barton C. Merrill            Bartlaw123@yahoo.com           Quality Plastering and Blum & Sons Electric
 9

             Kristine L. Mollenkopf       klm@hardincoffin.com           Colortrends Painting Company
10

11           Gary Tokumori                gtokumori@pmcos.com            First Regional Bank (Bank’s Action)
             Bradford F. Ginder           bginder@hbsb.com               JEM Services Inc.
12
     eric@eckitchenlaw.com; montyamyx@verizon.net; Bill@miltnerlaw.com;kenkrasne@krasnecompany.com;
13   klm@hardincoffin.com; gtokumori@pmcos.com; Bartlaw123@yahoo.com; kmilstead@pmcos.com; bginder@hbsb.com;

14
            3.2.      Liaison Counsel
15
            3.3.       Liaison Groups
16
            3.4.      Pro Hac Vice Admission of Counsel
17
            3.5.      Trial Counsel
18
                      The names and addresses of the attorneys who will try the case are (CRC, Rule
19
     212(i)(9)):
20
                      COUNSEL                  E-MAIL ADDRESS                              PARTY
21           Eric M. Kitchen              eric@ekitchenlaw.com           Narang Acquisition Group, LLC and Narang
                                                                         Holdings Group, LLC
22           Monty H. Amyx                montyamyx@verizon.net          A. J. Precision Concrete, Inc.
             Barton C. Merrill            Bartlaw123@yahoo.com           Blum & Sons Electric
             William L. Miltner           Bill@miltnerlaw.com            First Regional Bank
23
             Kristine L. Mollenkopf       klm@hardincoffin.com           Colortrends Painting Company
             Gary Tokumori                gtokumori@pmcos.com            First Regional Bank (Bank’s Action)
24           Bradford F. Ginder           bginder@hbsb.com               JEM Services Inc.

25

26

27

28




                                           Complex Case Management Order - 9
 1   4. MOTIONS
 2
           4.1.         Preliminary Legal Question Schedule
 3         4.2.         Class Certification Motion
 4         4.3.         Demurrers, Motions to Strike and Summary Adjudication Motions (App. to
 5                      CRC, Div I, §19(e)(7))
 6    Motion: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES

 7             Moving Party                                 Responding Parties
      FIRST REGIONAL BANK               JEM SERVICES;
 8                                      ANY OTHER PARTIES SEEKING TO FORECLOSE A MECHANIC’S
                                        LIEN
 9
              Responding Parties         Hearing      Submitted                   Disposition
10

11

12

13

14
           4.4.         Discovery Motions
15    Motion: MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

16                Moving Party                                    Responding Parties
      First Regional Bank               Narang entities
17

18            Responding Parties         Hearing      Submitted                   Disposition

      Narang entities                   1/13/10                   DENIED
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




                                         Complex Case Management Order - 10
 1

 2
            4.5.         Other Motions
 3     Motion: 09-18-09 Notice of Motion and Motion by Plaintiff for A) Bifurcation of Lien Priority Issue B) Trial Setting
       on the Lien Priority Issue and C) Stay Discovery Except for Priority Issues; Memo. of P's and A's; Declaration of
 4     Bradford Ginder; HRG: 10/28/2009, Filed by JEM Services Inc

 5               Moving Party                                              Responding Parties
       JEM Services Inc                         First Regional Bank
 6
               Responding Parties                Hearing      Submitted                        Disposition
 7
       First Regional Bank                      11/4/09
 8                                                                          The court granted, in part, plaintiff JEM
                                                                            Services, Inc.’s motion for bifurcation of lien
 9                                                                          priority issue, trial setting on lien priority issue
                                                                            and stay of discovery except lien priority issues.
10                                                                          The court ordered that the trial on the issue of
                                                                            lien priority will be bifurcated with and has set
                                                                            trial on that issue for March 24, 2120.. The
11
                                                                            court denies the motion to stay or limit
                                                                            discovery.
12

13
       Motion: FDIC, as receiver for First Regional Bank, on or about February 3, 2010 applied for issuance of 90-day stay
14     pursuant to 12 U.S. C. § 1821(d)(12)(A)(ii).
                   Moving Party                                           Responding Parties
15

16
               Responding Parties                Hearing      Submitted                        Disposition
17

18

19   5. DISCOVERY

20          5.1.        Special Discovery (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(3))

21                      5.1.1. List of Undisputed Facts
22                      With the respect to the issue of lien priority, the parties shall submit a list of
23   disputed and undisputed facts in this section of the next CCMO.
24                      5.1.2. Defect List
25                      On November 4, 2009, the Court ordered that the Narang entities do not submit a
26   Dismissal Agreement to the Bankruptcy Court by November 20, 2009, then any party claims that
27   there was a defect in the construction of Lavender Court relevant to any pleadings in the
28   consolidated Contractors’ Actions (whether the claim is a defense for claimed offset or claim by



                                                 Complex Case Management Order - 11
 1   the Narang entities for affirmative relief), that party shall serve on all parties a particularized list
 2   of defects by December 9, 2009. The defect list shall include (a) a particularized statement of
 3   each claimed defect, (b) the identity of each party claimed to be responsible for the alleged
 4   defect, (c) a statement whether or not each claimed defect has been repaired or corrected, and (d)
 5   if repaired or corrected, the name, address and telephone number of each person who repaired or
 6   corrected such defect. Such defect list shall be reported to the Court at the first Complex Case
 7   Management Conference following the trial of the lien priority issue if there is such a Complex
 8   Case Management Conference. No defect list was subitted by any party.
 9
                     5.1.3. Required Statements
10
                     5.1.4. Inspection and Testing
11
                     No defect list was submitted pursuant to the Complex Case Management Order.
12
     Expert Information Exchange
13
                     A demand for a simultaneous exchange of expert witness information on February
14
     2, 2010 was made. This relates only to the lien priority issue set for trial on March 24, 2010.
15
            5.2.     Stages of Discovery
16
                     5.2.1. Stage One
17
                     Stage One discovery is limited to issues relating to priority of mechanics’ liens
18
     and deed of trust. Stage One discovery shall be completed on or before February 24, 2010.
19

20
                     5.2.2. Stage Two

21                   5.2.3. Stage Three

22                   Expert witness disclosure and discovery will be conducted pursuant to Code of

23   Civil Procedure §§ 2034.210 et seq.

24          5.3.     Protective Orders (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(4))

25          5.4.     Document Depository (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(9))

26                   The Documents held by the receiver have been delivered to Miltner Law Group.

27

28




                                         Complex Case Management Order - 12
 1                   Documents relating to Lavender Court that were held by Eric Kitchen, counsel for
 2   the Narang Entities, were delivered to Rose Reporting Service (“Rose”) at 411 E. Canon
 3   Perdido, Suite 21, Santa Barbara, California 93101; (805) 966-0177.
 4                   Miltner Law Group shall deposit with Rose all documents received from the
 5   Receiver on or before November 20, 2009 and Rose shall hold the documents so delivered until
 6   further order of the Court. If the documents are reduced to electronic form shall be Bate stamped
 7   by appropriate software code.
 8
            5.5.     Interrogatories
 9
            5.6.     Depositions (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(8))
10                   If the parties wish to take depositions relating to the priority issue, they shall
11   identify the persons to be deposed for those issues by December 9, 2009 and shall take the
12   depositions by February 22, 2010. If any party should deem that additional depositions should
13   be necessary, that will be addressed at the Complex Case Management Conference on December
14   9, 2009. It is contemplated that no further depositions will be necessary before the trial of the
15   bifurcated issue of priority.
16                   The following depositions, for the general purpose indicated, may be taken on the
17   dates specified:
18                      Deponent                         General Purpose                        Date

19

20

21
            5.7.     Discovery Referee (CCP §639(a)(5))
22
                     5.7.1. Appointment
23

24                   5.7.2. Additional Discovery By Leave Of Discovery Referee

25   6. ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT

26                 The Court does not order that documents filed electronically in a central electronic

27   depository available to all parties are deemed served on all parties. (Rule 1830, CRC.)

28                 Parties shall use electronic service of pleadings. (CCP §1010.6(a)(6))



                                         Complex Case Management Order - 13
 1   7. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND MANDATORY SETTLEMENT
 2      CONFERENCES (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(5))
 3
           7.1.      Alternate Dispute Resolution (CRC, Rule 212(i)(1)-(2))
 4                   The parties are ordered to contact the CMADRESS office (568-3124) on or before
 5   November 30, 2009 to schedule a complex litigation CMADRESS conference or, alternatively
 6   agree by that date to schedule a mediation with a mutually agreed mediator and an agreed date
 7   for mediation. Any ADR option selected after this consultation or agreement to mediate shall be
 8   completed no later than March 1, 2010.
 9
           7.2.      Mandatory Settlement Conferences (App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(5); CRC,
10                    Rule 212(i)(10))
11   8. TRIAL
12                This matter is set for Court TRIAL of the bifurcated issue of priority on the Trial
13   Date of Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 11:30 am in this Department and that date shall be the
14   Trial Date for setting all time deadlines governed by the trial date of the bifurcated issue of
15   priority. The case will not necessarily start trial on the Trial Date. An estimated start date
16   will be available after the Trial Date is set. The trial estimate for the trial of the bifurcated
17   issue of priority is FIVE (5).
18                A jury trial on the merits of the consolidated Contractors’ Action, including any
19   cross-actions will be set at a future Complex Case Management Conference.
20                If the case does not start trial on the Trial Date, the parties will receive an official
21   “22-hour call out” no less than 22 hours before Actual Start Date by email and/or telephonic
22   notice. The estimated start dates of cases that are trailing will be published on the Department
23   Four web page. The estimated start date is subject to change depending on criminal matters
24   assigned to Department Four, priority cases assigned to Department Four, failure of prior cases
25   to meet their trial estimate and other factors. The estimated trial date will become more certain
26   as the date approaches, but remains tentative.
27

28




                                         Complex Case Management Order - 14
 1                On or before the Trial Date each party shall file, serve and, e-mail to all counsel of
 2   record and to the court at jbrown@sbcourts.org as an e-mail attachment (Microsoft Word
 3   preferred) the following:
 4                If the trial is a Court trial, a numbered list of any question or issue you want the
 5   court to rule on, each stated as a single question ending in a question mark (with a string
 6   cite to the controlling authorities).
 7                The table of contents of the party’s evidence binder
 8                A complete witness list of the party’s proposed witnesses;
 9                The party’s trial brief;
10                Any in limine motions offered by the party.
11                On or before the Trial Date all parties shall meet and confer and prepare a joint
12   evidence binder with sufficient copies for the witness stand and a copy for each side in the case.
13   The evidence binder shall comply with the following requirements.
14                Exhibits shall be numbered serially, without designation as “Plaintiff’s” or
15   “Defendants”;
16                Each party shall be assigned a block of numbers sufficient for the number of
17   exhibits to be offered by that party, with the lowest numbered block assigned to the
18   plaintiff;
19                There shall be a separate, numbered tab in the binder for each exhibit or group
20   exhibit;
21                Each group exhibit shall have an internal numbering system (Bates stamp or
22   pagination); and
23                Impeachment exhibits need not be in the evidence binder, but a numbered tab
24   for a “reserved” exhibit must be in the evidence binder for each impeachment exhibit; and
25                Each party shall obtain from the Department 4 Internet web page at
26   http://www.sbcourts.org/general_info/judicial_officers/jbrown/forms.htm a blank copy of the
27   court’s pre-trial order and shall be prepared to argue and provide the court with accurate
28   information called for by the pre-trial order at the pre-trial conference on the first day of trial



                                         Complex Case Management Order - 15
 1   9. SCHEDULE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES
 2
             The Court will conduct further complex case management conferences approximately
 3
     every seven (7) weeks on Wednesday afternoons in this department. (CRC, Rule 212(i)(11)-(12);
 4
     App. to CRC, Div I, §19(e)(12)).
 5
                  In order to reduce file congestion:
 6
                  (1) No Courtesy copies shall be delivered to the Court;
 7
                  (2) Where the Court’s orders require only service of a document the parties shall not
 8
     also file copies of that document.
 9
             All law and motion matters shall be set for hearing at a complex case management
10
     conference. If a matter is not set for a scheduled complex case management conference hearing,
11
     the notice of motion shall contain a certificate by counsel for the moving party why special
12
     setting is required.
13
                  On or before the Friday before a scheduled complex case management conference,
14
     the parties shall submit to the Court by e-mail at jbrown@sbCourts.org an electronic copy of the
15
     previous complex case management order with any changes or additions inserted into the order
16
     in a contrasting colored font. The parties shall meet and confer and, if possible, e-mail a single
17
     proposed complex case management conference order to the court with the suggested changes of
18
     different parties inserted in different colored fonts. If the parties are unable to so meet and
19
     confer and prepare a single proposed case management conference, each party may submit to the
20
     Court by e-mail at jbrown@sbCourts.org an electronic copy of the previous complex case
21
     management order with any changes or additions inserted into the order in a contrasting colored
22
     font. Microsoft Word is the preferred format and proposals limited to proposed findings and
23
     orders with very limited surplusage or argumentative material are strongly encouraged.
24
     The Court considers transmittal letters or e-mails to the Court concerning Proposed Case
25
     Management Orders or amendments thereto as ex parte communications and does not read or
26
     review them. The Court has authorized only submission of a statement of proposed amendments
27
     to or modifications of the then current complex case management order on the Friday before a
28




                                          Complex Case Management Order - 16
 1   scheduled CCMC. Supplemental briefs and letters are not authorized. Circumvention by
 2   submitting argumentative material in the proposed modifications is discouraged.
 3               Complex case management conferences in this case are set in Department Four as
 4   follows:
 5
            Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 1:30 PM
 6
            Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 3:00 PM
 7
            Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 3:00 PM
 8
            Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 3:00 PM
 9
            Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:00 PM
10

11
     IT IS SO ORDERED.
12

13
     Dated: February 10, 2010

14

15
                                                  ________________________________
                                                  JAMES W. BROWN
16                                                Judge of the Superior Court

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




                                      Complex Case Management Order - 17

								
To top