Document for FRED GEISLER, MD vs TERRY JOHNSTON

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1   JEFFREY F. RYAN (CA Bar No. 129079)
     Jeff@jeffreyryanlaw.com
 2   LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY F. RYAN
     The Fitzpatrick Building
 3   2000 Broadway Street
     Redwood City, California 94063
 4   Phone:(650) 922-2341
 5   Attorney for Plaintiffs
     FRED H. GEISLER, NORMAN C. FLEMING, and GENA ZISCHKE
 6
 7                  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 8                            FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
                            COMPLEX CIVIL LITIGATION – DEPT. 2
 9
10   FRED H. GEISLER, M.D., Ph.D., an individual,           )   Case No. 17-CIV 02888
     NORMAN C. FLEMING, an individual,                      )
11   and GENA ZISCHKE, an individual,                       )   PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
     directly, and derivatively on behalf of                )   EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
12   RHAUSLER, INC., COPERNICUS DYNAMICS                    )   REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF
13   GROUP, LP, AND ROES 1-25, inclusive,                   )   DECISION AFTER A COURT
                                                            )   TRIAL
14   v.                                                     )   (Filed February 7, 2023)
                                                            )
15
     TERRY J. JOHNSTON, an individual; ROBERT               )   (C.C.P. §632; CRC 3.1590(m))
16   JOHN GLYNN, JR., an individual; 3COR                   )
     MEDICAL, INC., a California Corporation;               )   NO HEARING REQUIRED
17   INDUSTRY OF THE REDWOODS, LLC, a                       )
18   Nevada LLC, RHAUSLER, INC., a California               )
     corporation, and DOES 1 to 25, Inclusive,              )   ([proposed] ORDER submitted
19                                                          )    separately and concurrently)
                                    Defendants,             )
20                                                          )
21   and RHAUSLER, INC., a California                       )
     Corporation,                                           )
22                    Nominal Defendant.                    )
23
24            Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1590(m), Plaintiffs hereby request an extension of
25   time to file A Request For Statement of Decision following issuance of the Court’s Tentative
26   Decision After a Court Trial, filed February 7, 2023.
27            The undersigned represents Fred H. Geisler, M.D., Norman C. Fleming, and Gena Zischke,
28   (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in the matter referenced above.


                                                        1

          PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF
                                           DECISION
 1
            CRC 3.1590(m) Extension of time; relief from noncompliance holds: “The court may, by
 2
     written order, extend any of the times prescribed by this rule and at any time before the entry of
 3
     judgment may, for good cause shown and on such terms as may be just, excuse a noncompliance
 4
     with the time limits prescribed for doing any act required by this rule.”
 5
            Good cause exists to grant Plaintiffs’ request for an extension as there was a delay in
 6
     Plaintiffs’ receipt of the tentative decision, and Plaintiffs’ primary writer and researcher is
 7
     currently unavailable.
 8
 9          On February 7, 2023, the Court filed a Tentative Decision After a Court Trial in

10   connection with the matter referenced above. The Tentative Decision was mailed to counsel’s

11   Redwood City office. At the time of mailing, counsel was out of town in Southern California, and
12   his secretary was out of the office as she was quite ill. Therefore, counsel did not actually receive
13   the Tentative Decision until February 14, 2023.
14          Moreover, counsel’s primary researcher and writer is currently unavailable to assist further
15   with this case. As a result, cvounsel had to hire a new associate who will need at least a week to
16
     adequately familiarize herself with the case and all of the issues germane to any statement of
17
     decision.
18
            As the Court is aware, Code of Civil Procedure section 632 and California Rules of Court,
19
     Rule 3.1590, require that the Statement of Decision explain the Court’s factual and legal bases for
20
     its decision, and that the Request for a Statement of Decision be filed within 10 days of the filing
21
     of the Tentative Decision, plus the 5-day mailing period contemplated by C.C.P. §1013, subd. (a).
22
     (Kroupa v. Sunrise Ford (1999) 77 Cal. App. 4th 835, 841, as modified (Jan. 20, 2000).)
23
24          Ergo, as matters now stand, the Request for Statement of Decision must be filed February

25   22, 2023; and the reviewing courts have said that, “[u]pon the timely request of one of the parties

26   in a non-jury trial, a trial court is required to render a statement of decision addressing the factual

27   and legal bases for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues of the case. (Code
28   Civ. Proc., § 632.).” (Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1124-1125.)
     (Emphasis added.)
                                                        2

       PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF
                                        DECISION
 1
             This is because “[t]he statement of decision provides the trial court's reasoning on
 2
     disputed issues and is our touchstone to determine whether or not the trial court's decision is
 3
     supported by the facts and the law. (citation omitted.).” (Slavin v. Borinstein (1994) 25 Cal.App.
 4
     4th 713, 718.) (Emphasis added.) Further, the Statement of Decision “ ‘also furnishes to the losing
 5
     party a basis of his motion for a new trial; he is entitled to know the precise facts found by the
 6
     court before proceeding with his motion for new trial, in order that he may be able to point out
 7
     with precision the errors of the court in matters either of fact or law. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” ( In
 8
 9   re Marriage of Fong (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 278, 294, citing and quoting Whittington v.

10   McKinney (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 123, 127.) (Emphasis added.)

11           Logically, therefore, the party requesting said Statement of Decision must specify the
12   principal controverted issues in said Request. (Rule 3.1590, subd. (d).).
13           A one-week extension will give Plaintiffs adequate time to properly specify ALL principal
14   controverted issues and offer Plaintiffs’ citation to the record of the lengthy bench trial of the
15   uncontroverted evidence pertaining to those issues. Given the duration of the litigation and
16
     complex nature of the case, Plaintiffs simply desire to take the time necessary to ensure any
17
     statement of decision fully and accurately reflects the facts and issues in this case for the benefit of
18
     the parties and the Court.
19
             For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request a one-week extension (a new
20
     deadline of Wednesday, March 1, 2023) to file their Request for a Statement Decision.
21
22
     Dated: February 16, 2023                        LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY F. RYAN
23
24
25                                                   By________________________________
                                                                 Jeffrey F. Ryan
26                                                               Attorneys for Plaintiffs
27
28


                                                         3

       PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF
                                        DECISION
 1                                          PROOF OF E-SERVICE
 2            I, the undersigned, declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this
 3     action. My business address is 2000 Broadway Street, Redwood City, CA 94063.
 4            Pursuant to two written JOINT stipulations dated February 8, 2018 and October 15,
 5     2018 by and among the following parties, and by Case Management Order #8 dated
 6     November 20, 2018, I caused to be served on set date set forth below, by means of electronic
 7
       mail, the attached document(s) to the Person(s) at the email address set forth below their
 8
       respective names:
 9
                                        DOCUMENTS SERVED:
10
       PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJETIONS TO
11            COURT’S TENTATIVE DECISION AFTER A COURT TRIAL
12   [proposed] ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
         FILE REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF DECISION AFTER A COURT TRIAL
13

14
      PERSONS SERVED:
15
        Terry J. Johnston                                Judge’s Copy – Department 2
16      7551 Saguaro Cactus Avenue                       San Mateo Superior Court
        Las Vegas, NV 89178                              400 County Center
17      Terry.j.johnston7551@gmail.com                   Redwood City, CA 94063
        Defendant/Cross-Complainant                      complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org
18

19        I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

20    foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Redwood City, California, on February 16, 2023.

21

22                                                 ________________________
                                                   Judy Lucero
23

24

25

26

27

28




                                   PROOF OF E-SERVICE BY JOINT STIPULATION
                             SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 17CIV02888
                           COMPLEX LITIGATION – ASSIGNED TO DEPT. 2 FOR ALL PURPOSES