DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV085797·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayGRANTED IN PART

LINCOLN LANDING PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY vs KA THREE GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

Motion for Leave To Recall Witnesses Derrick Larson and Damon Scholl for Further Cross-Examination

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
24
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLINCOLN LANDING PROPERTY OWNER, LLC
DefendantKA THREE GROUP INC.
Cross-ComplainantAnu Shukla
Cross-ComplainantAmerican Family Care
Cross-ComplainantGaurav Verma

Attorneys

James M. Hesterfor Defendant

Ruling

24CV085797: LINCOLN LANDING PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY vs KA THREE GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave Motion for Leave To Recall Witnesses Derrick Larson and Damon Scholl for Further Cross-Examination; filed by Anu Shukla (Cross- Complainant) + CRS# 039077645749 in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 08/18/2026 Rebekah Evenson

The Motion for Leave NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RECALL WITNESSES DERRICK LARSON AND DAMON SCHOLL FOR FURTHER CROSS- EXAMINATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by Anu Shukla, American Family Care, Gaurav Verma on 07/24/2026 is Granted in Part.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave To Recall Witnesses Derrick Larson and Damon Scholl for Further Cross-Examination is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendants contend that their attorney, James M. Hester, was impaired on June 23, 2026, the first day of trial in this matter, and seek to recall two witnesses – Derrick Larson and Damon Scholl -- for a “limited” further cross-examination.”

Mr. Hester represented Defendants at the trial that commenced on June 23. He conducted extensive cross examination of both Derrick Larson and Damon Scholl.

On June 24, Mr. Hester apparently fainted after parking his car at the courthouse, before trial was set to commence. Although he appeared in the courtroom and advised the Court he could continue with the trial, the undersigned decided to adjourn court for the day to permit Mr. Hester to seek medical attention. Mr. Hester’s doctor thereafter advised that Hester should remain away from work until late July. The Court continued the trial for Defendants to obtain new counsel.

Defendants now contend that Hester was impaired on June 23, the first day of trial. At no point has any party advised the Court as to the nature of Hester’s health condition, or shown any connection between his fainting on June 24 and his ability to represent Defendants on June 23. Defendants submit their own declarations stating that Hester seemed unwell on June 23. Mr. Verma’s July 24 declaration in support of this motion states that on June 23 Mr. Hester “did not appear well and was clearly not himself physically.

He appeared exhausted and physically limited, and it was apparent to me he was struggling.” The Court notes, however, that Mr. Verma submitted a declaration on June 26 stating the opposite: that Hester was “in good physical condition during the first day of trial on June 23, 2026.” Mr. Hester himself submitted a declaration on June 26 stating that “On the first day of trial, I knew that I was not as sharp as I normally am. During a break, I went off into the hallway to think about my cross examination but lost track of time and awareness of where I was.

When I finally returned to the courtroom, I was truly embarrassed at what had happened, as nothing like that has ever happened to me before. Although I was able to continue for the remainder of the day, I experienced confusion and a sense that something was not right.” 24CV085797: LINCOLN LANDING PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY vs KA THREE GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave Motion for Leave To Recall Witnesses Derrick Larson and Damon Scholl for Further Cross-Examination; filed by Anu Shukla (Cross- Complainant) + CRS# 039077645749 in Department 24

The Court had an opportunity to observe Mr. Hester on June 23. Other than his delayed return from one break, Mr. Hester did not exhibit behavior suggesting he was impaired. Mr. Hester conducted significant cross-examination of Plaintiff’s witnesses. Contrary to Defendants’ suggestion that Hester’s abandonment of a line of questioning demonstrated incapacity, Mr. Hester’s decision to stop pursuing a line of questioning that lacked relevance showed his ability to make strategic decisions in the interests of his clients.

Nonetheless, given Mr. Hester’s statement about his disorientation on June 23, and his subsequent medical incapacity, the Court finds good cause to grant Defendants a limited opportunity to reopen cross examination of the two witnesses at issue here to address any deficiencies in the cross examination that were caused by Mr. Hester’s medical issues.

To avoid undue prejudice to Plaintiff, the Court imposes the following limitations:

1. Defendants may conduct a total of fifteen minutes of additional cross examination for Derrick Larson, and ten minutes for Damon Scholl, to address the four matters identified in Defendants’ briefing. Defense counsel previously cross-examined Mr. Larson for approximately one and a half hours, and Mr. Scholl for approximately half an hour. Fifteen and ten additional minutes should be more than sufficient to permit Defendants’ new counsel to close any gaps left by Mr. Hester’s lengthy and detailed cross examinations.

2. The witnesses have the option to appear by zoom, but if so they must be in a location with a strong internet connection using a computer with a working camera, must be alone in the room where they testify, must have all exhibits readily available, and must look only at the computer and not at any electronic device or paper unless specifically directed to do so by the Court or examining counsel.

3. The Court ORDERS Defendants to deliver to the Court a certified copy of the full transcript of the June 23 hearing no later than September 3.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share