LUND, BRADFORD DISNEY TRUST (1992)

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BP129814    Hearing Date: January 30, 2020    Dept: 1

#1 – In re: The Lillian B. Disney Trust (BP055495)

#2 – In re: The Sharon D. Lund 1986 Irrevocable Trust (BP129815)

#3 – In re: The Bradford Disney Lund 1992 Trust (BP129814)

#4 – In re: The Sharon D. Lund Residuary Trust (BP119204)

#5 – In re: The Sharon D. Lund Residuary Trust (BP119205) 

On December 12, 2019, Judge David J. Cowan, sitting in probate Department 3 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse issued the following order in the five related probate cases captioned above: 

Effective February 3, 2020, Judge Cowan is reassigned to a Civil courtroom, Dept. 20 of this same courthouse. In view of the fact that he is in the middle of hearing two highly contested petitions, and in the interests of judicial economy, the Court believes it is obligated to conclude the disposition of those petitions, as well as hearing the report of the guardian ad litem associated with those petitions, and any all related issues or motions arising therefrom, including but not limited to any objections thereto, in order to facilitate and reduce the time and expense of resolution of these long standing cases. 

Judge Cowan does not at this time believe he will have sufficient time, however, with the Civil cases he is assigned, to hear any trials of the underlying contested accounting petition and or other related petitions in these cases were those to have to go forward. 

Accordingly, all future hearing dates on or after February 3, 2020 in these related cases will now be heard in Dept. 20, including the hearing now set for February 28, 2020. The hearing on February 28, 2020 will be at 10:00 a.m. Counsel are advised that Civil courtrooms do not have a court reporter assigned. Counsel are required to bring their own if they wish to have a record of the oral proceedings. 

(Dec. 12, 2019 Min. Order.) On January 2, 2020, Judge Cowan issued an order noting, in relevant part, “[t]he court previously stated, by minute order filed December 12, 2019, that the re-assignment to a different courtroom was solely for purposes of judicial economy to complete the pending petitions for approval of settlement agreement and for appointment of replacement trustees and issues associated therewith as to which this judge has already made preliminary rulings as to complex matters as well as avoid any issues arising from two judges hearing the same petitions.” 

On January 2, 2020, Bradford D. Lund and the Co-Trustees of The Bradford Disney Lund 1992 Trust, Sherry Lund and Jim Dew filed identical documents entitled “Joint Motion to Reassign Probate Proceeding Back to Probate Division from Civil Division” in each of the five probate cases with the hearing set in Department 1. On January 16, 2020, First Republic Trust Company filed its opposition in each case, and the movants filed their reply on January 23, 2020 in each case. As the motions, oppositions, and replies are identical in all five cases, the court will address them together and refer to the motions collectively as a single motion. 

The earliest-filed probate case, BP055495, was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 16, 1999. On August 15, 2018, Judge Maria E. Stratton issued an order assigning the five related cases to Judge Cowan for all purposes. The court notes, as argued by First Republic in opposition, moving party Bradford D. Lund has filed two unsuccessful challenges to Judge Cowan within the last four months: an October 16, 2019 challenge pursuant to CCP § 170.1 and a December 27, 2019 challenge pursuant to CCP § 170.6. Accordingly, the instant motion requesting a reassignment of the cases from Judge Cowan’s civil department appears to be an exercise in judge-shopping, particularly in light of Judge Cowan’s January 2, 2020 order that sets forth noting the limited remaining issues upon which he intends to rule. 

Movants note their motion is brought “assuming that matters stayed on appeal can be reassigned to a new department while awaiting appeal.” (Mo. at 7.) Movants provide no authority addressing this issue as Probate Code § 1300(a) defines only one type of appealable probate order. (Prob. Code § 1300(a) (“In all proceedings governed by this code, an appeal may be taken from the making of, or the refusal to make, any of the following orders: (a) Directing, authorizing, approving, or confirming the sale, lease, encumbrance, grant of an option, purchase, conveyance, or exchange of property.”).) However, the administrative reassignment of an action between departments of a superior court does not appear to fall within the scope of the relevant statutes governing stays pending appeal. (CCP §§ 916 et seq; Prob. Code § 1310.)

Movants argue that a civil department lacks jurisdiction to hear a probate matter and cannot handle the complexities of these probate cases. Movants also argue that Judge Cowan’s order violated the Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court, deprived the parties of their right to a court reporter, and failed to honor Movants’ due process rights. Thus, the motion seeks to reverse Judge Cowan’s December 12, 2019 order based upon legal error and asks this court to make contrary findings regarding whether judicial economy is best served by Judge Cowan temporarily retaining these probate cases. Accordingly, the court finds the instant motion constitutes an untimely and improper motion for reconsideration. (CCP § 1008.)

Moreover, neither Department 1, nor any other judicial officer of this court, has the authority to reverse Judge Cowan’s order on the grounds raised by Movants. (Geddes v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 417, 425–426 (“one trial judge may not review the ruling of another trial judge because the superior court, although comprised of many judges, is a single court.”); People v. Woodard (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 107, 111 (“The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, though comprised of a number of judges, is a single court and one member of that court cannot sit in review on the actions of another member of that same court.”).)

The Joint Motion to Reassign Probate Proceeding Back to Probate Division from Civil Division filed in BP055495, BP129815, BP129814, BP119204, and BP119205 is DENIED in its entirety.

Counsel for First Republic Trust Company to give notice.