PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO LIFT DISCOVERY STAY IMPOSED DECEMBER 2, 2024
The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.
Genevieve Welsh v. Robert Fanucci, et al. 22CV001147
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO LIFT DISCOVERY STAY IMPOSED DECEMBER 2, 2024
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The stay ordered by the Court on December 2, 2024, is hereby LIFTED. The matter is set for Case Management Conference on July 22, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B. The parties should be prepared to set the matter for trial at the Case Management Conference.
Plaintiff Genevieve Welsh moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a): (1) for an order lifting the discovery stay in the matter; and (2) for scheduling of trial in the matter trailing that in Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV000460 captioned Genevieve Welsh v. Thomas Brown, et al. (Brown Action).
By Order After Hearing entered December 2, 2024 (12/2/24 OAH), the Court stayed the matter pending resolution of Genevieve Welsh v. Thomas Brown, et al., Case No. 22CV000460 in the Napa County Superior Court (Welsh v. Brown). As the Court noted at the time, “Defendants seek a stay pending full resolution of Welsh v. Brown. The Court acknowledges, however, the possibility that resolution of certain issues involved in that action may, prior to full resolution of the action, justify lifting the present stay. This ruling is therefore made without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to move the Court for an order lifting the stay.” (Id. at p. 3.)
Defendant contends that “[t]he factual and procedural landscape has materially changed in the sixteen months since the stay was imposed.” (Support Memorandum at 2:2-3.) The Court agrees, though not necessarily for the reasons urged by Defendant.
The Court concludes that the purpose of the stay has been accomplished by the passage of time and the progress towards trial in Welsh v. Brown. Nothing has changed the Court’s conclusion that “the claims for legal malpractice asserted here arise out of Defendant's transactional work for Plaintiff and the defendant in Welsh v. Brown, and . . . determinations regarding the effect, validity, and interpretation of the several transactional documents that were produced by that work are central to the Welsh v. Brown action . . . [and] . . . Plaintiff's damages claims, here, are, to a great degree, dependent on determinations regarding the effect, validity, and interpretation of the transactional documents that are at issue in Welsh v. Brown.” (12/2/24 OAH at p. 2.) For this reason, the Court finds good cause for ordering that any trial in this action will trail the trial in Welsh v. Brown.
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 Court notes that it is currently setting matters for trial in May – June of 2027. The Court further takes judicial notice of the fact that Welsh v. Brown is set to proceed to trial in September or October of 2026. The Court finds from the foregoing, that the timing of the resolution of those issues in Welsh v. Brown that are material to Plaintiff’s claims here, no longer constitutes grounds for prohibiting the parties in this action from proceeding with discovery.
Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED. However, the Court defers setting the matter for trial to the Case Management Conference set for July 22, 2026.
Bank of America N.A. v. Kristen Rose Sass 24CV000269
MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT UNDER TERMS OF STIPULATED SETTLEMENT
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. moves, pursuant to Code of Civil procedure 664.6, for an order to vacate the dismissal and for entry of judgment under terms of the stipulated settlement.
Good cause appearing, and no opposition having been filed, the Motion is GRANTED.
John Michael Cole et al v. The Testate and Intestate 25CV000177 Successors of Paula Von Duering, Deceased et al
[1] CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
In light of the rulings below, the Court continues the Case Management Conference in this matter to August 5, 2026, 8:30 am in Department B.
[2] MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULTS AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are granted 15 Court days leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in substantially the same form as that attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of John H. Heffner.
Plaintiffs John Michael Cole and Anna Janae Cole, as Trustees of the Cole Family Trust Dated December 29, 2004, move, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473, subdivision (a)(1) and 473, subdivision (d), for an order setting aside all defaults entered against defendants in the action, and granting Plaintiffs leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
Good cause appearing, and no opposition having been filed, the Motion is GRANTED.
5