AMENDED MOTION TO QUASH INTERESTED PARTIES DARLENE BOLIVER AND LAWRENCE JACOBSON’S NOTICE TO APPEAR AT TRIAL (ROA 2040)
Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT CM06 HON. JUDGE Megan L. Wagner
Date: 06/11/2026 Court Room Rules and Notices
# Case Name Tentative Jacobson Trust 2018-00975081 JEFFREY/JJ AMENDED MOTION TO QUASH INTERESTED PARTIES DARLENE BOLIVER AND LAWRENCE JACOBSON’S NOTICE TO APPEAR AT TRIAL (ROA 2040)
The Court has read and considered Respondents Jeffrey Alan Jacobson (Jeffrey1) and JJ Freeman Property, LLC’s (JJ) Motion to Quash Interested Parties Darlene Boliver (Darlene) and Lawrence Jacobson’s (Lawrence) Notice to Appear at Trial etc. (ROA 2040); the Opposition thereto (ROA 2325); Jeffrey and JJ’s Reply Brief (ROA 2369), and all relevant portions of the court file. 1 Members of the Jacobson family will be referred to by their first names for clarity; no disrespect is intended.
In Darlene and Lawrence’s Notice to appear at trial, they seek the attendance of Jeffrey Jacobson (a party), Linda Asher, the person most knowledgeable at JJ Freeman Property, LLC (JJ) regarding rental agreements and rent paid on the 1401 Freeman property; loans in which the Trust was a co-borrower, and JJ’s net worth and financial condition; and the person most knowledgeable at Jacobson Plastics, Inc. (JPI) regarding loans secured by the Gladys or Freeman properties, loans in which the Trust was a co-borrower; promissory notes by JPI to the Trust; payments on such promissory notes; rental agreements for the Freeman property; JPI’s historical financial condition; rental payments to JPI; and JPI’s net worth.
Jeffrey and JJ allege Linda Asher is not an officer, director or managing agent of JJ and is not a party or a person for whose benefit, immediate or otherwise, the action is maintained. These allegations are supported by Jeffrey’s declaration in support of the motion. Darlene and Lawrence make no effort to justify the notice to appear as it relates to Linda Asher. The Court therefore GRANTS the motion to quash as to Linda Asher. Nothing in this ruling prohibits Darlene and Lawrence from securing Linda Asher’s attendance to testify at trial by any other appropriate means.
Jeffrey and JJ further argue that obtaining testimony of a “person most knowledgeable” is limited to deposition testimony. The Court agrees. No statute or caselaw allows for securing testimony of a “person most knowledgeable” outside of depositions noticed under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230. Darlene and Lawrence do not dispute this. The Court GRANTS the motion to quash as to the PMKs of JJ and JPI.
Jeffrey and JJ also argue that JPI, like Asher, is not a party, person for whose immediate benefit an action is prosecuted, or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party and thus not subject to the “notice to appear” procedure set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). Like with Asher, this argument is supported by a declaration by Jeffrey under penalty of perjury that JPI does not occupy any of those positions. Darlene and Lawrence argue that JPI is not an “unrelated third party.” This begs the question. Darlene and Lawrence do not establish (or even argue) that because the Trust owns 20% of JPI and Jeffrey is JPI’s majority shareholder and chief executive, JPI is a party, a person whose immediate benefit the action is prosecuted, or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Because the Court is granting the motion to quash as to Asher, JJ, and JPI, the specificity of the categories of testimony sought from the PMK’s need not be scrutinized.
Finally, Jeffrey and JJ seek an award of $1,575 for expenses incurred in bringing this motion. Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 states: “[T]he court may in its discretion award the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification.” “ ‘Substantial justification’ means that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well grounded in both law and fact. (Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 35, 40 (cleaned up).)
Here, Darlene and Lawrence offer no well grounded argument – in law or in fact – that the notice to appear as to Asher, JJ and JPI was proper and should not be quashed. The question is not even close. Had they withdrawn the notice to appear, rather than oppose the motion to quash, section 1987.2 would not apply. They did not. The court awards Jeffrey and JJ their reasonable expenses of $1,575 incurred in bringing this motion.
1 Members of the Jacobson family will be referred to by their first names for clarity; no disrespect is intended.
JEFFREY/JJ AMENDED MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF KENNETH FEINFIELD (ROA 502)
The Court has read and considered Respondents Jeffrey Alan Jacobson (Jeffrey1) and JJ Freeman Property, LLC’s (JJ) Amended Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude the Testimony and Expert Opinions of Kenneth Feinfield (ROA 502); Interested Parties’ Opposition to Respondents’ Motion in Limine #1 of 3 (ROA 511); Jeffrey and JJ’s Reply Brief (ROA 2214), and all relevant portions of the court file. 1 Members of the Jacobson family will be referred to by their first names for clarity; no disrespect is intended.
In the Expert Witness Designation; Declaration of Leslie R. Smith, Attorney Smith states Feinfield “is expected to render opinions as to [1] the intent of the Settlors of the Jacobson Family Trust u/t/d September 27, 1955, as Amended; [2] the