This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 00:00:34 (UTC).

BRIAN WILLIAM CORMAN ET AL VS ROGER WILLIAM CORMAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/26/2017 BRIAN WILLIAM CORMAN filed an Other lawsuit against ROGER WILLIAM CORMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT and DAVID J. COWAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1310

  • Filing Date:

    10/26/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT

DAVID J. COWAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

CORMAN ROGER MARTIN ON BEHALF OF CORMAN

CORMAN BRIAN WILLIAM

CORMAN ROGER MARTIN

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

CORMAN ROGER WILLIAM

DOES 1 TO 50

NEW HORIZONS PICTURE CORPPORATION

CORMAN FAMILY INVERSTMENT PARTNERSHIP

CORMAN JULIE

CORMAN CATHERINE A.

CORMAN MARY T.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant, Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WEINGARTEN ALEX M. ESQ.

RUMMEL BLAKE

Defendant, Respondent and Petitioner Attorneys

FREEMAN FREEMAN & SMILEY LLP

JOHNSTON CAROL A. ESQ.

SINGER MARTIN DORI

HART ALLISON SUE

NISEN FERN S.

WARNER JULIAN ROBERT

WASSERSTEIN CHARLOTTE SOPHIA

WEINGARTEN ALEX M. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

FREEMAN FREEMAN & SMILEY LLP

Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

COHEN JERYLL SUE

WYLE GERALDINE A

CHOW CAROL

Cross Defendant Attorney

HANLE SEAN PATRICK

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANTS'' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'' MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER ETC.

4/6/2018: DEFENDANTS'' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'' MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER ETC.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF JERYLL S. COHEN EN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

4/12/2018: EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF JERYLL S. COHEN EN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. CORMAN FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER

4/18/2018: DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. CORMAN FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JULIAN R. WARNER FROM REPRESENTING AND TO APPOINT PROVISIONAL DIRECTOR OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT CORMAN FAMILY INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNER

4/27/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JULIAN R. WARNER FROM REPRESENTING AND TO APPOINT PROVISIONAL DIRECTOR OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT CORMAN FAMILY INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNER

NOM[NAL DEFENDANT CORMAN FAMILY INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP?S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUAUFY JULIAN R. WARNER FROM REPRESENTING AND TO APPOINT PROVISIONAL DIRECTOR OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT CORMAN FAMILY INV

5/8/2018: NOM[NAL DEFENDANT CORMAN FAMILY INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP?S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUAUFY JULIAN R. WARNER FROM REPRESENTING AND TO APPOINT PROVISIONAL DIRECTOR OF NOMINAL DEFENDANT CORMAN FAMILY INV

CATHERINE A. CORMAN AND MARY CORMAN?S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS? RESPONSE TO UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE

5/14/2018: CATHERINE A. CORMAN AND MARY CORMAN?S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS? RESPONSE TO UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF JANE FREEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF CATHERINE AND MARY CORMAN'S NOTICE OF JOINDER TO ROGER W. CORMAN'S MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDERS

5/14/2018: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF JANE FREEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF CATHERINE AND MARY CORMAN'S NOTICE OF JOINDER TO ROGER W. CORMAN'S MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDERS

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO ROGER W. CORMAN'S AND JULIE CORMAN' REQUEST TO STRIKE SECOND OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

5/16/2018: PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO ROGER W. CORMAN'S AND JULIE CORMAN' REQUEST TO STRIKE SECOND OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

Minute Order

5/21/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO JULIAN R. WARNER'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENI? IN RESPONSE TO MINUTE ORDER RE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JULIAN R. WARNER FROM REPRESENTING AND TO APPOINT PROVISIONAL DIRECTOR

7/6/2018: PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO JULIAN R. WARNER'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENI? IN RESPONSE TO MINUTE ORDER RE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JULIAN R. WARNER FROM REPRESENTING AND TO APPOINT PROVISIONAL DIRECTOR

AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE

10/3/2018: AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE

Request for Judicial Notice

10/16/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order

11/14/2018: Minute Order

Declaration

2/6/2019: Declaration

Notice

2/19/2019: Notice

Response

3/22/2019: Response

Unknown

3/26/2019: Unknown

Notice

5/8/2019: Notice

216 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/08/2019
  • Notice (of Attorney Service Delayed Service); Filed by Roger William Corman (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Amended Complaint (SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF ROGER W. CORMAN AND JULIE CORMAN); Filed by Roger William Corman (Cross-Complainant); Julie Corman (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Amended Cross-Complaint 2nd; Filed by Roger William Corman (Cross-Complainant); Julie Corman (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, David J. Cowan, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Roger William Corman (Cross-Complainant); Julie Corman (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by BRIAN WILLIAM CORMAN (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, David J. Cowan, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Why Motion of Catherine Corman and Mary Corman to Disqualify Venable, LLP as Counsel for Brian Corman and Roger M. Corman, Filed March 13, 2019, Should Not Now Be Unsealed.) - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 3, David J. Cowan, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Why Motion of Catherine Corman and Mary Corman to Disqualify Venable, LLP as Counsel for Brian Corman and Roger M. Corman, Filed March 13, 2019, Should Not Now Be Unsealed.) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 3, David J. Cowan, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (To Cross-Complainants Roger W. Corman?s and Julie Corman?s First Amended Cross-Complaint) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 3, David J. Cowan, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Deposition and Document Production of Mary T. Corman) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
302 More Docket Entries
  • 12/14/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 74; Unknown Event Type - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-12-14 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Roger William Corman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • Notice of Related Cases

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Brian William Corman (Plaintiff); Roger Martin Corman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Notice of Related Cases

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Brian William Corman (Plaintiff); Roger Martin Corman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2017
  • COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC681310    Hearing Date: June 22, 2020    Dept: 20

Ruling

Judge David J. Cowan

Department 20


Hearing Date: Monday, June 22, 2020

Case Name: Corman v. Corman

Case No.: BC681310

Motion: Motion to Seal

Moving Party: Defendants Roger and Julie Corman

Responding Party: UNOPPOSED

Notice: OK


Ruling: The Motion to Seal is DENIED.Moving party to give notice.


The Court has reviewed the motion. There was no opposition filed. The Court denies the motion for the following reasons:

  1. The two settlement agreements do not contain any trade secrets or proprietary information warranting sealing. The Court was not persuaded by the argument related to moving parties being put in any potential tactical disadvantage by reason of the disclosure of these agreements.
  2. The two agreements do not contain specific values of assets that persons might wish to remain confidential.
  3. No privileged tax records are revealed.
  4. Estate of Gallio
  5. People v. Jackson
  6. In NBC Subsidiary (KNBC -TV) v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178,
  7. As noted in Estate of Hearst (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 777, 783-784, “no statute exempts probate files from the status of public records, and that when individuals employ the public powers of state courts to accomplish private ends, such as the establishment and supervision of long-term testamentary trusts, they do so in full knowledge of the possibly disadvantageous circumstance that the documents and records filed in the trust will be open to public inspection. To some extent they can protect against the disadvantage of publicity by arranging for the service of papers on individual beneficiaries through their attorneys or through post-office-box addresses. Alternatively, they can eschew court-regulated devices for transmission of inherited wealth and rely on private arrangements such as Inter vivos gifts, joint tenancies, and so-called ‘living’ or grantor trusts. But when the parties perceive advantages in obtaining continuing court supervision over their affairs, thereby projecting their wishes beyond the span of their individual lives and securing court protection for the beneficiaries of their testamentary plans, in a sense they take the good with the bad, knowing that with public protection comes public knowledge of the activities, assets, and beneficiaries of the trust. What is more, the public has a legitimate interest in access to public records, such as court documents, which establish and perpetuate long-term testamentary trusts. If public court business is conducted in private, it becomes impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, prejudice, and favoritism. For this reason traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence distrusts secrecy in judicial proceedings and favors a policy of maximum public access to proceedings and records of judicial tribunals. Thus in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) 384 U.S. 333, 350, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 530, 34 P. 227, 228.)

Case Number: BC681310    Hearing Date: March 17, 2020    Dept: 20

The Motion to Seal is DENIED.Moving party to give notice.All parties shall appear by court call if they do not submit on the tentative. The parties should not attend in person.

If all parties do not agree to argue by Court Call, the hearing will need to be continued for 30 days in view of the Governor’s emergency directives related to Coronavirus epidemic and the need for the Court to mitigate health risks to all persons potentially affected.

The Court has reviewed the motion. There was no opposition filed. The Court denies the motion for the following reasons:

  1. The two settlement agreements do not contain any trade secrets or proprietary information warranting sealing. The Court was not persuaded by the argument related to moving parties being put in any potential tactical disadvantage by reason of the disclosure of these agreements.
  2. The two agreements do not contain specific values of assets that persons might wish to remain confidential.
  3. No privileged tax records are revealed.
  4. Estate of Gallio
  5. People v. Jackson
  6. In NBC Subsidiary (KNBC -TV) v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1218, the California Supreme Court concluded that most judicial records are subject to a presumption of openness. When the presumption applies, the public has a qualified right of access. That right may be denied only if the court, after notice and hearing, makes four supported findings: “(i) there exists an overriding ... interest supporting closure and/or sealing; (ii) there is a substantial probability ... that the interest will be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing; (iii) the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (iv) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest.” These principles are also codified in California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550. Here, moving parties do not establish how this Court could find this presumption is not applicable or how it could make any of these four findings finding an exception should apply.
  7. As noted in Estate of Hearst (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 777, 783-784, “no statute exempts probate files from the status of public records, and that when individuals employ the public powers of state courts to accomplish private ends, such as the establishment and supervision of long-term testamentary trusts, they do so in full knowledge of the possibly disadvantageous circumstance that the documents and records filed in the trust will be open to public inspection. To some extent they can protect against the disadvantage of publicity by arranging for the service of papers on individual beneficiaries through their attorneys or through post-office-box addresses. Alternatively, they can eschew court-regulated devices for transmission of inherited wealth and rely on private arrangements such as Inter vivos gifts, joint tenancies, and so-called ‘living’ or grantor trusts. But when the parties perceive advantages in obtaining continuing court supervision over their affairs, thereby projecting their wishes beyond the span of their individual lives and securing court protection for the beneficiaries of their testamentary plans, in a sense they take the good with the bad, knowing that with public protection comes public knowledge of the activities, assets, and beneficiaries of the trust. What is more, the public has a legitimate interest in access to public records, such as court documents, which establish and perpetuate long-term testamentary trusts. If public court business is conducted in private, it becomes impossible to expose corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, prejudice, and favoritism. For this reason traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence distrusts secrecy in judicial proceedings and favors a policy of maximum public access to proceedings and records of judicial tribunals. Thus in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) 384 U.S. 333, 350, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, the court said it is a vital function of the press to subject the judicial process to ‘extensive public scrutiny and criticism.’ And the California Supreme Court has said, ‘it is a first principle that the people have the right to know what is done in their courts.’ (In re Shortridge (1893) 99 Cal. 526, 530, 34 P. 227, 228.) Absent strong countervailing reasons, the public has a legitimate interest and right of general access to court records, one of special importance when probate involves a large estate with on-going long-term trusts which reputedly administer and control a major publishing empire.” No such strong countervailing reasons have been offered here.