Motion for Production of Election Records and Determination of Scope of Section 7616 Proceedings
July 13, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 29 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM 26-CIV-03505 SHANNON PEKARY VS. PALO ALTO PARK MUTUAL WATER COMPANY, ET AL. LINE 10
SHANNON PEKARY PRO PER PALO ALTO PARK MUTUAL WATER COMPANY BRIAN A. BARNHORST
PLAINTIFF: SHANNON PEKARY’S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF ELECTION RECORDS AND DETERMINATION OF SCOPE OF SECTION 7616 PROCEEDINGS
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Shannon Pekary’s Motion for Production and Determination of Scope of Section 7616 Proceedings is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Per the notice filed July 2, 2026, the request for an order compelling production of election records is moot. The request for an order determining whether a determination of the validity of the vote approving the challenged bylaw amendments remains at issue.
The Court previously expressed some doubt as to whether the scope of this proceeding under Corporations Code section 7616 encompasses the issue of whether the bylaw amendments were validly approved by the members at the 2025 annual meeting. This doubt arises in part due to the fact that former section 315 of the Civil Code—one of the predecessors of Corporations Code section 7616—“was enacted in order that court might have power to proceed in a summary manner to test the title of directors to office without recourse to the slow and cumbersome proceeding of quo warranto.” (Boericke v. Weise (1945) 68 Cal.App.2d 407, 410.)
The text of former section 315 did not limit its scope to “any election or appointment of any director of any corporation” (Corp. Code, § 7616, subd. (a)) but permitted, “[u]pon the application of any person or body corporate aggrieved by any election held by any corporate body, the district court of the district in which such election is held must proceed forth with to hear the allegations and proofs of the parties, or otherwise inquire into the matters of complaint, and thereupon confirm the election, order a new one, or direct such other relief in the premises as accords with right and justice.” (
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?”
The language of the modern provisions of the Corporations Code, which permit courts to determine the validity of “any election or appointment of any director of any corporation” rather than “any election of a corporate body,” supports a conclusion that the Legislature was limiting the reach of Section 7616 only to challenges regarding a director’s office and voting rights related thereto.
That being said, there is no indication this motion has been served on any party. While no other party was entitled to notice by statute, because none had appeared at the time the motion was filed (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1010), “notice is usually considered essential in any application affecting the rights of the adverse party,” “[e]ven if no statute makes notice a condition. (6 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (6th ed. 2026) Proceedings Without Trial, § 7; see McDonald v. Severy (1936) 6 Cal.2d 629, 631 [“general rule is that notice of motion must be given whenever the order sought may affect the rights of an adverse party”].)
July 13, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 30 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Defendant Palo Alto Mutual Water Company should be afforded notice and an opportunity to respond so as to comport with principles of due process. And, given the impending trial date, the Court shall deem the motion—and any amended motion that addresses the above concern discussed above—to be one in limine to be served, briefed, and decided in accordance with July 6, 2026 Pretrial Order.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the Water Company shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling 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 by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.