MOTION TO DEEM CASE COMPLEX AND STAY ALL DISCOVERY
6/25/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 16 of 25
2:00 PM LINE: 8 25-CIV-09212 BANDEL CARANO VS. FMA BUILDERS
BANDEL L. CARANO WILLIAM R GARRETT FMA BUILDERS DAVID DAVIDSON
DEFENDANT/CROSS COMPLAINANT FMA BUILDERS’ MOTION TO DEEM CASE COMPLEX AND STAY ALL DISCOVERY PENDING ENTRY OF CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.400(a)-(c); THE STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 3.10; CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 187, 128 AND 2017.020 and SMC Local Rule 3.300
TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The request to deem the case complex is MOOT because the action has already been deemed complex and assigned to this department pursuant to San Mateo County Local Rule 3.300. The Court has issued Case Management Order No. 1 and will not enter a competing case management order proposed by either side.
The request for a temporary stay of discovery is GRANTED. All discovery that has been propounded to date is stayed, and the time to respond to that discovery is tolled, pending appointment of the special master and completion of a meet and confer process before the special master regarding how discovery should proceed under Case Management Order No.
1. No additional party discovery shall be propounded during the stay absent agreement of the parties or further court order.
The request to appoint Robert A. Bellagamba as special master is GRANTED IN PRINCIPLE, subject to submission of a proposed order defining the scope of reference, compensation, interim allocation of fees, reporting procedure, objection procedure, and any separate mediation role. After the special master is appointed, the parties shall promptly meet and confer with the special master regarding discovery procedures, including the sequencing of written discovery, document production, inspections, depositions, expert discovery, discovery involving newly added parties, and any discovery issues not specifically addressed by Case Management Order No.
1. Any supplemental procedures must be consistent with Case Management Order No. 1 unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
If the parties agree on supplemental discovery procedures, they shall submit a stipulated supplemental case management order or discovery protocol. If they cannot agree, the special master may make recommendations to the Court consistent with the order of reference and Case Management Order No.
1.
The Court does not decide at this time whether mediation fees, mediator fees, or special-master fees may be recovered by any party as costs, attorney fees, or otherwise after judgment or other disposition. That issue is premature and is preserved for any later properly noticed cost or fee proceeding. Any interim allocation or payment of such fees is without prejudice to any party’s right to seek recovery, or to oppose recovery, after judgment or other disposition.
6/25/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 17 of 25
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the Defendant FMA Builders shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.