Sukhov v. Sukhov CA4/3

Filed 4/29/15 Sukhov v. Sukhov CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

STEPHEN SUKHOV et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G050743

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIP094118)

ALEX SUKHOV et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Joan F. Burgess, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Motion for Judicial Notice. Order affirmed. Motion granted in part. Law Offices of Michelle J. Sukhov and Michelle J. Sukhov for Plaintiff and Appellant Stephen Sukhov. Law Offices of Lee R. Goldberg and Lee R. Goldberg for Plaintiff and Appellant John Sukhov. Thompson & Colegate, Susan Knock Brennecke and John A. Boyd for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Stephen Sukhov and John Sukhov appeal from an order denying their motion to disqualify the attorneys representing defendants Alex Sukhov, Vladimir Sukhov, and Boris Sukhov. They argue defendants’ counsel improperly “aligned” themselves with the retired judge who had acted as a mediator and temporary judge in this matter, thereby obtaining confidential information related to the pending action. There is no evidence defendants obtained any confidential information nor is there any alignment or appearance of impropriety that would require disqualification. Therefore we affirm the order. Defendants filed a motion for judicial notice as to two documents, a declaration filed by the temporary judge and the trial court’s order striking it. Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. Defendants request we take judicial notice only of the existence of the declaration and that its contents were consistent with information previously provided to both parties, not of the truth of the contents of the declaration. We grant the motion as to the existence and contents of the declaration pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452, subdivision (d) and 459, and Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1265-1266. We deny the motion as to the order because it is already part of the record. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties are five of the six sons of Roza Sukhov. In 1989 Roza created a trust leaving unequal shares of her estate to her six sons. Ten years later, she revised the trust, disinheriting John, and in 2003 by amendment, she disinherited Stephen. Defendants are the trustees of the trust. In 2008 Stephen filed a petition to set aside the amendment whereby he was disinherited, alleging Roza amended the trust based on defendants’ undue influence, fraud, and duress. Two years later John filed a petition against defendants seeking to obtain an interest in what the parties refer to as the Wildomar property.