Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCP02039, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02039    Hearing Date: May 21, 2025    Dept: 82

Herbert Marshak, M.D., et al.                                 Case No. 22STCP02039

v.                                                                     Hearing: May 21, 2025

                                                                        Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse

                                                                                    Department: 82                                       Stuart Lee Zubrick, et al.                                               Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch

[Tentative] Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate

[Tentative] Order Re-Calculating Five-Year Date

[Tentative] Order Transferring Case to Department One

             Petitioners Herbert Marshak, M.D. (“Dr. Marshak”) and Champion Medical Group, a Medical Corporation (“Champion”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed this petition and complaint against Respondents Stuart Lee Zubrick (Mr. Zubrick”) and Stuart L. Zubrick, Marriage, Family and Child Counseling, a Professional Corporation (collectively, “Respondents”).  In brief, Dr. Marshak and Mr. Zubrick formed Champion in approximately 2000, and both would serve as directors.  Petitioners seek a writ of mandate to compel Respondents to disclose corporate records and to enjoin Respondents from altering, concealing, or destroying these records, which are the first and second causes of action.  The court (Beckloff, J.) stayed the case with respect to the third through eighth causes of action pending a decision on the writ-related causes of action. (See Court’s Minute Order, dated January 11, 2023.)

            In the opening brief, Petitioners concede that there is nothing to try and that the petition for disclosure of corporate records is moot.  (See Opening Brief (“OB”) 1:25-26 [“Basically, there remains the issue of attorney’s fees”].)  Although Petitioners state that “[t]echnically speaking, there remains the issue of Respondent’s failure to provide bank account statements for the years 2017 to the present,” Petitioners have not submitted any evidence or developed an argument from which the court could find that Respondents have any further duty to disclose corporate records.  Accordingly, the court denies the petition with respect to the first and second causes of action.  (See Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1574 [“A case is considered moot when the question addressed was at one time a live issue in the case, but has been deprived of life because of events occurring after the judicial process was initiated.”].) 

            Petitioners request attorney’s fees in the amount of $34,767.50.  (OB 5:5-8.)  However, Petitioners have not identified the statutory or contractual basis for attorney’s fees.  Nor have they submitted any evidence of the reasonable lodestar fee.  Accordingly, the request is denied without prejudice to Petitioners bringing a noticed motion for attorney’s fees. 

            The court lifts the stay with respect to the third through eighth causes of action.  The court also re-calculates the deadline by which this case must proceed to trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, commonly known as the “five-year date.”

1.         This case was filed on May 31, 2022.  The court stayed the third through eighth causes of action on January 11, 2023.  Therefore, the non-writs claims proceeded for 253 days. 

2.         The court lifted the stay of the negligence claim on May 21, 2025.

3.         The court excludes time periods during which “trial of the action was stayed or enjoined,” per Code of Civil Procedure section 583.340(b). 

4.         Based upon the foregoing, the deadline for the negligence case to proceed to trial is Monday, September 10, 2029 (which is 253 days less than May 21, 2030). 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

1.         The court denies the petition for writ of mandate with respect to the first and second causes of action.

2.         The court denies Petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees without prejudice to filing a noticed motion.

3.         The court lifts the stay on the third through eighth causes of action.

4.         The court finds that the deadline for the third through eighth causes of action to proceed to trial is September 10, 2029.

5.         The court transfers this case to Department One for assignment to an independent calendar court for trial on the third through eighth causes of action per Local Rules 2.8 and 2.9.

6.         The court’s clerk shall provide notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: May 21, 2025                                                  ______________________

                                                                                    Stephen I. Goorvitch

                                                                                    Superior Court Judge