Matter of Montgomery-Bertuzzi Living Trust

"Case law is clear that ' "[w]aiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right after knowledge of the facts.' [Citations.] The burden ... is on the party claiming a waiver of a right to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that does not leave the matter to speculation, and "doubtful cases will be decided against a waiver" [citation].' [Citations.] The waiver may be either express, based on the words of the waiving party, or implied, based on conduct indicating an intent to relinquish the right." (Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 31.) "[A] statutory benefit may be waived if (1) the statute does not prohibit waiver, (2) the statute's public purpose is incidental to its primary purpose, and (3) the waiver does not seriously undermine any public purpose the statute was designed to serve." (Lanigan v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1030.) As the above discussion demonstrates, the statutory right of section 925 is a voluntary right of the employee and as such may be waived. Defendants assert that Guadagno's conduct in the Texas Action evidences waiver. The Texas Action was filed on September 23, 2025, in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas. (Chang decl., ¶ 1 & exhibit 1.) On December 11, 2025, three defendants in the Texas Action other than Guadagno made a motion to transfer the Texas Action from the Marshall Division to the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas on the basis of a forum selection provision in the employment agreements of those three employees. (Chang decl., exhibit 5, p. 155.) In support of that motion, Guadagno filed a declaration that stated in part: "It would be more convenient for me to remain in the same action with the same schedule as the other co-Defendants, which will make trial of this case easier, more expeditious, and less expensive than if the Defendants were in different courts." (Chang decl., exhibit 5, ¶ 5.) "I consent to transfer this action from the Marshall Division to the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas." (Chang decl., exhibit 5, ¶ 6.) By these statements, Guadagno supported transferring the entirety of the Texas Action from one division of the Eastern District of Texas to another as opposed to dividing the action in federal court in Texas in multiple divisions in Texas. Because Guadagno could recognize that he may have to continue in the Texas Action in Texas regardless of this California action, it is not inconsistent for Guadagno to consent to have the Texas Action proceed as a single action with all defendants rather than insist upon separate actions in different divisions but still in Texas. Thus, Guadagno's declaration in the Texas Action does not persuasively support a claim that Guadagno intended to waive his right to have the claims of this action determined in California as provided in section 925. Similarly, Guadagno's mere participation in the Texas Action reflects only the taking of necessary steps in defense of claims against him in that action. As a factual matter, on the evidence presented, the court does not find that Guadagno waived his rights under section 925. Under Labor Code section 925, subdivisions (a) and (b), Guadagno, a Californian employed in California, is entitled to litigate employment disputes such as the present action in California notwithstanding a contrary forum selection clause in an employment agreement. Guadagno did not waive his statutory right to adjudication in California and exercises that right by this action. There is a strong public policy expressed in section 925 that foreign forum selection clauses are not to be enforced over the objection of a California employee. (EpicentRx, supra, 18 Cal.5th at p. 77.) The pendency of the Texas Action does not preclude continued litigation in this court. (Advanced Bionics, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 708.) Given the strong public policy interest in permitting this litigation in California, it is neither necessary nor proper to stay or dismiss this action on the basis of either the Texas forum selection clause or the pendency of the Texas Action. Defendants' motion to stay or to dismiss this action will therefore be denied. Tentative Ruling: Matter of Montgomery-Bertuzzi Living Trust Tentative Ruling: Matter of Montgomery-Bertuzzi Living Trust Case Number 25PR00004 Case Type Trust

Hearing Date / Time Thu, 05/21/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings 1. Motion: Compel Arbitration and Demand for Stay of All Proceedings; 2. Petition for Order Confirming Trust Assets; Breach of Duties; Removal of Trustee; Appointment of Successor Trustee; Imposition of Constructive Trust; Double Damages - (Sans Removal Tentative Ruling Appearances are required to update the Court. Tentative Ruling: Matter of James A Brown and Betty A Brown Revocable Trust Tentative Ruling: Matter of James A Brown and Betty A Brown Revocable Trust Case Number 25PR00248 Case Type Trust Hearing Date / Time Thu, 05/21/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Accounting 1st Account of Trustee; Authorizing Reimbursement of Trust Expenses; Allowing Compensation to Trustee Tentative Ruling Absent objection, this Petition will be approved. No appearance is required on 05/21/2026. Tentative Ruling: Matter of Brad and Karen Paola Trust Tentative Ruling: Matter of Brad and Karen Paola Trust Case Number 25PR00273 Case Type Trust Hearing Date / Time Thu, 05/21/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Compel (2); Petition to Determine Claim to Property under Probate Code 850; Financial Elder Abuse; Fraud; Conversion; Return Assets to the Trust; for Disgorgement; and for Attorneys Fees and Costs Tentative Ruling Appearances are required to update the court. Tentative Ruling: Estate of Nancy B Tustian Tentative Ruling: Estate of Nancy B Tustian Case Number 25PR00308 Case Type Decedent's Estate-Probate & Letters Testamentary Hearing Date / Time Thu, 05/28/2026 - 09:00