Durand et al v. Stephenson et al

Filing 91

AMENDED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/27/12: The parties estimate three (3) to four (4) court days for trial. Trial will commence on January 14, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

EDWIN DURAND, an individual;
)
MADELAINE DURAND, an individual, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CANDICE L. STEPHENSON, J. WAYNE )
STRAUCH, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.
)

Case No.S:09-CV-02038 JAM-CKD
AMENDED PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE ORDER

Pursuant to court order, a Pretrial Conference was held on

20

November 16, 2012 before Judge John Mendez.

Plaintiffs appeared In

21

Pro Se; Glenn W. Peterson appeared as counsel for defendants.

22

After hearing, the Court issued its Pretrial Conference Order.

23

Both parties submitted objections to this Order.

24

these objections, the Court makes the following findings and

25

orders:

After considering

26

I. JURISDICTION/VENUE

27

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and has

28

previously been found to be proper by order of this court, as has
1

1

venue.

Those orders are confirmed.

2
3

II. JURY/NON-JURY
Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.

4

III. STATEMENT TO BE READ TO JURY

5

Seven (7) days prior to trial the parties shall E-file a joint

6

statement of the case that may be read to the jury at the beginning

7

of jury selection.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

IV. UNDISPUTED FACTS
The parties agree that the following facts are not in dispute,
and they stipulate to these facts for purposes of trial.
1.

Plaintiff Madelaine Durand is an individual who resides

in Washoe County, Nevada.
2.

Plaintiff Edwin Durand is an individual who resides in

Washoe County, Nevada.
3.

Defendant Candice L. Stephenson is an individual who

resides in Placer County, California.
4.

Defendant J. Wayne Strauch is an individual who resides

18

in Marion County, Oregon and has extensive contacts within the

19

State of California.

20

5.

The subject Westinghouse Airbrake Company Articulated

21

Loader model 1200 was located at 2024 Taylor Road, Roseville,

22

California.

23

6.

24
25
26
27
28

2024 Taylor Road, Roseville, California is owned by

Defendant J. Wayne Strauch.
7.

On April 18, 2008 the Defendants J. Wayne Strauch and

Candice Stephenson sold the subject Loader to Richard Van Tassel.
8.

On April 18, 2008 Richard Van Tassel met Defendant

Candice L. Stephenson at her home located at 111 Bonny Knoll Road,
2

1

Roseville, California and gave her a check in the amount of

2

$6,000.00 made out to the Strauch Administrative Trust, the

3

purchase price of the Loader.

4

9.

The copy of the check from Richard Van Tassel to the

5

Strauch Administrative Trust for $6,000 dated April 18, 2008 is

6

deemed authentic.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

10.

Defendant Stephenson told CHP Investigating Officer Bruce

Ogden that the Loader had been sold for $6,000.
11.

Stephenson admitted having a conversation with Mr. Durand

after the Loader was sold.
12.

The Loader was moved off the property located at 2024

Taylor Road, Roseville, California in April 2008.
13.

Defendant Strauch had a telephone conversation with Mr.

14

Durand after the Loader was removed from 2024 Taylor Road,

15

Roseville, California wherein Mr. Durand stated that he (Durand)

16

owned the Loader.

17
18
19
20

14.

Both Candice L. Stephenson and J. Wayne Strauch are

Trustees on the Strauch Administrative Trust.
15.

Before Marjorie Strauch died she was a Trustee on the

Strauch Administrative Trust.

21

16.

Marjorie Strauch died on June 26, 1999.

22

17.

Both Defendants Candice L. Stephenson and J. Wayne

23
24
25
26
27
28

Strauch are Marjorie Strauch’s heirs.
18.

Defendant Stephenson knew that her mother had sold the HD

41 dozer.
19.

Defendant Stephenson’s mother told her that she sold the

HD 41 dozer to a Mr. Brown.
20.

Defendant J. Wayne Strauch knew that the HD 41 dozer had
3

1

been sold.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

V. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES
The parties agree that the following factual issues are
disputed:
1.

Whether Durand owned the subject Loader at the time of

the alleged conversion?
2.

Whether Durand had the right to possession of the subject

Loader at the time of the alleged conversion?
3.

Whether the Defendants had the right to sell the Loader

at the time of the alleged conversion?

11

4.

Whether Durand had abandoned the Loader?

12

5.

Whether Durand had a “For Sale” sign attached to the

13

Loader?

14

6.

15
16
17
18
19
20

The value of the Loader as of April 18, 2008, the time of

the alleged conversion.
7.

Whether the Durands are entitled to damages, and if so,

the amount of such damages.
8.

What was said, and by whom, during Stephenson’s 2008 19

minute conversation with Mr. Durand.
9.

Whether Mr. Durand had an oral agreement with Marjorie

21

Strauch to store the Loader at no cost for an indefinite period of

22

time on her property in Roseville.

23

10.

Whether there is an original Bill of Sale between Francis

24

Brown and Marjorie Strauch for the Loader, and, if so, what

25

happened to this Bill of Sale?

26

11.

What was said, and by whom, during Mr. Durand’s telephone

27

conversations with Marjorie Strauch on January 19, 1996, January

28

27, 1996 (two conversations), July 24, 2008, July 28, 2008, and
4

1

July 29, 2008.

2

VI. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

3

1.

Durand anticipates hearsay objections to statements by

4

Richard Van Tassel that the Defendants told him they knew the

5

Loader had been sold but could not find the owner.

6
7

2.

Should the Defendants include Mr. Rick Churches as a

witness, Durand anticipates filing a motion in limine.

8

3.

Strauch’s statement that he knew his mother had sold the

9

Loader is admitted pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 36(a)(3), but the

10

statement is not admissible on grounds that it is confusing and

11

incomplete.

12

4.

Strauch’s statement that he told Durand that the persons

13

who had stolen his pumpkin patch equipment must have stolen the

14

Loader is admitted pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 36(a)(3).

15

5.

Defendants contend that item 2 may be resolved by a

16

motion in limine.

17

admissibility of various documents proffered by plaintiffs.

18

objections will, in some instances, depend upon the purpose(s) for

19

which plaintiffs offer the document(s).

20

6.

Defendants also anticipate challenging the
The

Plaintiffs anticipate challenging the admissibility of

21

various documents proffered by Defendants.

22

anticipate filing several motions in limine including motions

23

seeking to: (a) exclude Defendants’ witnesses on various grounds;

24

(b) exclude some of Defendants’ affirmative defenses; (c) exclude

25

Mr. Churches as a non-retained expert; and (d) exclude any evidence

26

or argument by Defendants concerning the amount of the sale of the

27

dozer to Mr. Churches.

28

///
5

Plaintiffs also

1

VII. RELIEF SOUGHT

2

Durands seek money damages between $120,000 to $250,000, a

3

fair compensation for the time and money properly expended in

4

pursuit of the property, interest from the time of conversion and

5

all costs allowed by law.

6

Defendants, by counterclaim, seek a declaratory judgment

7

herein, quieting title to the subject personally, i.e., a decree

8

that ownership of the Loader was never transferred to Plaintiffs,

9

either by operation of law or by agreement, because, among other

10

things, Plaintiffs failed to complete performance of the agreement,

11

i.e., by taking possession of the Loader and removing it from the

12

vacant field owned by Marjorie Strauch.

13

seek a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ recourse herein is

14

limited as a matter of law and equity to return of the money

15

deposited with the deceased Marjorie Strauch.

Accordingly, Defendants

16

VIII. POINTS OF LAW

17

Trial briefs shall be E-filed with the court no later than

18

seven (7) days prior to the date of trial, i.e., January 7, 2013.

19

Any points of law not previously argued to the Court should be

20

briefed in the trial briefs.

21
22

IX. ABANDONED ISSUES
The Durands’ contend that their Complaint requesting damages

23

in the amount of $600,000 was abandoned back in 2009 and that they

24

are proceeding on the appraised valuation of their expert witness.

25

Defendants dispute any attempt to abandon the Noble Murray

26

Appraisal and/or the damage claim in the amount of $600,000.

27

Defendants intend to offer this appraisal, and Plaintiffs’

28

representations to this Court that accompanied it, for multiple
6

1

purposes under Rules 403-404, 607-609, and 613 under the Federal

2

Rules of Evidence.

3

appropriately offered to the trier of fact for impeachment

4

purposes, and/or to negate Plaintiffs’ credibility as witnesses at

5

trial.

Among other things, these statements are

6

X. WITNESSES

7

Plaintiffs anticipate calling the following witnesses:

8

1.

Madelaine Durand.

9

2.

Edwin Durand.

10

3.

Timothy Fadda.

11

4.

Candice L. Stephenson by Deposition and Interrogatory.

12

5.

J. Wayne Strauch by Deposition, Interrogatory, and

13

Admissions.

14

Rebuttal witnesses:

15

1.

Richard Van Tassel.

16

2.

Kimberly Pilant.

17

Defendants anticipate calling the following witnesses:

18

1.

Madelaine Durand.

19

2.

Edwin Durand.

20

3.

Candice Stephenson.

21

4.

J. Wayne Strauch.

22

5.

Rick Churches.

23

6.

Ted Mitchell.

24

7.

Jim Taylor.

25

8.

Greg Reed.

26

9.

David Willard.

27

10.

James Dobbas

28

Each party may call a witness designated by the other.
7

1

A.

2

No other witnesses will be permitted to testify unless:
(1)

The party offering the witness demonstrates that the

3

witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could not be

4

reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Conference, or

5

(2)

The witness was discovered after the Pretrial

6

Conference and the proffering party makes the showing required in

7

"B" below.

8
9

B.

Upon the post-Pretrial discovery of witnesses, the

attorney shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of

10

the existence of the unlisted witnesses so that the court may

11

consider at trial whether the witnesses shall be permitted to

12

testify.

13
14

(1)

(2)

(3)

If time permitted, counsel proffered the witnesses

for deposition;

19
20

The court and opposing counsel were promptly

notified upon discovery of the witnesses;

17
18

The witnesses could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to Pretrial;

15
16

The evidence will not be permitted unless:

(4)

If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the

witnesses' testimony was provided opposing counsel.

21

XI. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES

22

Plaintiff intends to introduce the following exhibits:

23

1.

Pictures of the Loader.

24

2.

Bill of Sale of the Loader and Dozer between Francis

25

Brown and Eric Andersen.

26

3.

27

Durand.

28

4.

Bill of Sale of the Loader and Dozer between Andersen and

Telephone bill from February 1996.
8

1

5.

Telephone bill from August 2008.

2

6.

Telephone bill from September 2008.

3

7.

Telephone bill from October 2008.

4

8.

Time line of telephone calls 2008.

5

9.

Verification of telephone numbers for government agencies

6

contacted 2008.

7

10.

Stolen Vehicle Report.

8

11.

Copy of CHP Officer Bruce Ogden’s business card.

9

12.

Letter dated January 10, 2009 to Strauch and Stephenson

10
11
12

including proofs of receipt.
13.

Letter dated February 2, 2009 to Strauch and Stephenson

including proofs of receipt.

13

14.

Declaration of Candice Stephenson dated November 6, 2009.

14

15.

State of California Secretary of State certified

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

document.
16.

Strauch’s Resquest for Admissions mailed January 22, 2010

– never answered.
17.

Stephenson’s Responses to Request for Admissions, Set No.

One dated March 3, 2010.
18.

Stephenson’s Responses to Interrogatories Set No. One

dated March 3, 2010.
19.

Stephenson’s Responses to Interrogatories Set No. One

dated March 15, 2010.
20.

Stephenson’s Responses to Interrogatories Set No. One

dated April 17, 2010.
21.

Stephenson’s Responses to Interrogatories Set No. Two

dated May 5, 2010.
22.

Strauch’s Responses to Interrogatories Set No. One dated
9

1

April 14, 2010.

2

23.

3

May 6, 2010.

4

24.

Strauch’s Deposition Transcript dated May 3, 2010.

5

25.

Stephenson’s Deposition Transcript dated March 15, 2010.

6

26.

Declaration of Rick Churches dated May 12, 2010.

7

27.

Letter from Francis Brown dated February 25, 1996.

8

28.

Telephone bill from 2001 showing calls to Noble Murray.

9

29.

Telephone bill from 2003 showing calls to Noble Murray.

10

30.

Letter dated January 11, 2001 from Edwin Durand to Noble

11

Strauch’s Responses to Interrogatories Set No. Two dated

Murray.

12

31.

Email dated February 7, 2001 from Murray to Durand.

13

32.

Email dated December 31, 2000 from Murray to Durand.

14

33.

Email dated February 8, 2001 from Durand to Murray cc

15

Kimberly Pilant.

16

34.

March 12, 2001 letter from Murray.

17

35.

March 14, 2001 letter from the Governor of Montana to

18
19
20

Durand.
36.

Email from Gregg Hoss dated November 19, 2010 verifying

2001 dozernet listings and sales of comparables.

21

37.

Hoss Equipment listings of comparables from 2001.

22

38.

Miscellaneous listings of comparables from 2001.

23

39. Affidavit of Richard Van Tassel dated May 20, 2010.

24

40. Affidavit of Richard Van Tassel dated August 6, 2010.

25

41. Declaration of Timothy Fadda dated October 11, 2010.

26

42. Declaration of Timothy Fadda dated June 1, 2010.

27

43.

Timothy Fadda’s October 2007 letter.

28

44.

Timothy Fadda’s Expert Witness Report filed August 16,
10

1

2012.

2

45.

Deed of Trust dated 12/28/1990.

3

46.

Affidavit of Kimberly Pilant.

4

Defendant intends to introduce the following exhibits:

5

A.

6

Heavy Equipment Appraisal – Appraiser Noble Murray –

February 2006.

7

B.

Plaintiffs’ 2009 comparable listings.

8

C.

Transcript of May 3, 2010 deposition of Edwin Durand.

9

D.

Transcript of May 3, 2010 deposition of Madelaine Durand.

10

E.

May 20, 2010 Affidavit of Richard Van Tassel.

11

F.

June 4, 2010 Declaration of Edwin Durand.

12

G.

June 4, 2010 Declaration of Madelaine Durand.

13

H.

July 15, 2010 Order to Show Cause.

14

I.

August 6, 2010 Plaintiffs’ Authentication of Noble Murray

15

Appraisal.

16

J.

February 7, 2011 email allegedly between Noble Murray and

17

Edwin Durand.

18

K.

19

Noble Murray.

20

L.

21

Edwin Durand.

22

M.

February 8, 2011 email allegedly between Edwin Durand and

March 12, 2001 purported letter from Noble Murray to

Noble Murray handwriting exemplars from the Special

23

Collections Department of the University of Nevada, Reno, Mathewson

24

– IGT Knowledge Center.

25

N.

2001 Hoss Equipment Listings.

26

O.

Plaintiffs’ 2001 comparable listings.

27

P.

August 5, 2010 Affidavit of Kimberly Pilant.

28

Q.

August 6, 2010 Affidavit of Richard Van Tassel.
11

1

R.

2

Durand.

3

S.

August 23, 2010 Order Re: In Camera Review.

4

T.

Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration dated October 13,

5

August 11, 2010 Declaration of Edwin and Madelaine

2010.

6

U.

October 13, 2010 Declaration of Madelaine Durand.

7

V.

June 1, 2010 Declaration of Timothy Fadda.

8

W.

Expert Witness Report by Timothy Fadda dated August 15,

9

2010.

10

X.

October 11, 2010 Declaration of Timothy Fadda.

11

Y.

Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Stephenson’s Request

12
13
14

for Production of Documents, Set No. One dated April 28, 2010.
Z.

Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Stephenson’s

Interrogatories, Set No. One dated April 28, 2010.

15

Each party may use an exhibit designated by the other.

16

A.

17

unless:

18

No other exhibits will be permitted to be introduced

(1)

The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that

19

the exhibit is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could

20

not be reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Conference, or

21

(2)

The exhibit was discovered after the Pretrial

22

Conference and the proffering party makes the showing required in

23

paragraph "B," below.

24

B.

Upon the post-Pretrial discovery of exhibits, the

25

attorneys shall promptly inform the court and opposing counsel of

26

the existence of such exhibits so that the court may consider at

27

trial their admissibility.

28

unless the proffering party demonstrates:

The exhibits will not be received

12

1
2

(1)

discovered prior to Pretrial;

3
4

The exhibits could not reasonably have been

(2)

The court and counsel were promptly informed of

their existence;

5

(3)

Counsel forwarded a copy of the exhibit(s) (if

6

physically possible) to opposing counsel.

7

not be copied, the proffering counsel must show that he has made

8

the exhibit(s) reasonably available for inspection by opposing

9

counsel.

10

If the exhibit(s) may

As to each exhibit, each party is ordered to exchange copies

11

of the exhibit not later than January 2, 2013.

12

granted five (5) days to file and serve objections to any of the

13

exhibits.

14

grounds for the objection.

15

respective exhibits in accord with the Court’s Pretrial Order.

16

Exhibit stickers may be obtained through the Clerk’s Office.

17

original and one (1) copy of the exhibits shall be presented to

18

Harry Vine, Deputy Courtroom Clerk, at 8:30 a.m. on the date set

19

for trial or at such earlier time as may be agreed upon.

20

can be contacted at [phone] or via e-mail at:

21

[e-mail].

22

to, it shall be marked and may be received into evidence on motion

23

and will require no further foundation.

24

objected to will be marked for identification only.

25
26
27
28

Each party is then

In making the objection, the party is to set forth the
The parties shall pre-mark their

An

Mr. Vine

As to each exhibit which is not objected

Each exhibit which is

XII. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
See Sections XVI C, XVI D and XVI E.
XIII. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS
Pursuant to the court's Status Conference Order, all discovery
13

1

and law and motion was to have been conducted so as to be completed

2

as of the date of the Pretrial Conference.

3

confirmed.

4

pursuant to informal agreement.

5

not be enforceable in this court.

The parties are free to do anything they desire

6
7

None.
XV. AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS
None.

10
11

However, any such agreement will

XIV. STIPULATIONS

8
9

That order is

XVI. FURTHER TRIAL PREPARATION
A.

Counsel are directed to Local Rule 285 regarding the

12

contents of trial briefs.

13

days prior to trial, i.e., January 7, 2013.

14

B.

Such briefs should be E-filed seven (7)

Counsel are further directed to confer and to attempt to

15

agree upon a joint set of jury instructions.

16

instructions shall be lodged via ECF with the court clerk seven (7)

17

calendar days prior to the date of the trial, i.e., January 7,

18

2013, and shall be identified as the "Jury Instructions Without

19

Objection."

20

parties shall submit the instruction(s) via ECF as its package of

21

proposed jury instructions three days before trial, i.e., January

22

11, 2013.

23

the “Jury Instructions Without Objection” and should be clearly

24

identified as “Disputed Objections” on the proposed instructions.

25

The joint set of

As to instructions as to which there is dispute the

This package of proposed instructions should not include

The parties shall e-mail a set of all proposed jury

26

instructions in word or wpd format to the Court’s Judicial

27

Assistant, Jane Klingelhoets, at: [e-mail].

28

C.

It is the duty of counsel to ensure that any deposition
14

1

which is to be used at trial has been lodged with the Clerk of the

2

Court pursuant to Local Rule 133(j).

3

lodged with the court clerk seven (7) calendar days prior to the

4

date of the trial.

5

discharge this duty may result in the court precluding use of the

6

deposition or imposition of such other sanctions as the court deems

7

appropriate.

8

D.

The depositions shall be

Counsel are cautioned that a failure to

The parties are ordered to E-file with the court and

9

exchange between themselves not later than one (1) week before the

10

trial a statement designating portions of depositions intended to

11

be offered or read into evidence (except for portions to be used

12

only for impeachment or rebuttal).

13

E.

The parties are ordered to E-file with the court and

14

exchange between themselves not later than one (1) week before

15

trial the portions of Answers to Interrogatories or Requests for

16

Admission which the respective parties intend to offer or read into

17

evidence at the trial (except portions to be used only for

18

impeachment or rebuttal).

19

F.

Each party may submit proposed voir dire questions the

20

party would like the court to put to prospective jurors during jury

21

selection.

22

week prior to trial.

23

G.

Proposed voir dire should be submitted via ECF one (1)

Each party may submit a proposed verdict form that the

24

party would like the Court to use in this case.

25

forms should be submitted via ECF one (1) week prior to trial.

26

H.

Proposed verdict

In limine motions shall be E-filed separately at least

27

ten (10) days prior to trial, i.e., January 4, 2013.

28

briefs shall be E-filed five (5) days prior to trial, i.e., January
15

Opposition

1

9, 2013.

No reply briefs may be filed.

2
3
4

XVII. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
No further formal Settlement Conference will be set in this
case.

5
6

XVIII. AGREED STATEMENTS
See paragraph III, supra.

7
8
9

XIX. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES
Defendants intend to argue by way of a motion in limine that
certain of their affirmative defenses are triable only by the

10

Court, sitting without a jury.

Specifically, Defendants’ fourth

11

and fifth affirmative defenses assert equitable defenses which

12

Defendants will seek to have determined by the Court only.

13

XX. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS

14

Appointment by the Court of impartial expert witnesses and

15

limitations on experts are not necessary.

16
17

XXI. ATTORNEYS' FEES
Not applicable.

18
19

XXII. MISCELLANEOUS
None.

20

XXIII. ESTIMATE OF TRIAL TIME/TRIAL DATE

21

The parties estimate three (3) to four (4) court days for

22
23

trial.

Trial will commence on January 14, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

Counsel are to call Harry Vine, Courtroom Deputy, at

24

[phone], one week prior to trial to ascertain the status of

25

the trial date.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: November 27, 2012.

28
16