SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

CALVANO DEVELOPMENT, INC. and MARK A. CALVANO, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

INSIGHT REALTY INVESTMENT, INC., dba INSIGHT REALTY COMPANY, and DOES 1 100, inclusive,

Defendants.
Case No. 17CV309478

TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

The above-entitled action comes on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on February 15, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves a number of actions and cross-actions involving both active and nominal parties. The primary dispute is between Plaintiff Mark A. Calvano and Defendants Marwood Investors I, LLC (“Marwood”) and Vincent Woo (together, “Defendants”). In 2015, Calvano owned rights to purchase three properties (the “Properties”) in Mountain View, California. Calvano, Marwood, and Woo agreed to form a joint venture named CM-MV-LLC (the “JV”). The purpose of the JV was to acquire and develop the Properties. The JV agreement provided that Marwood would initially own 95% of the JV and Calvano would initially own 5%. In 2015 and 2016, the JV acquired two of the three Properties. Since then the JV has leased certain premises, made certain capital improvements, and has submitted development plans to the City of Mountain View for approval.

The business relationship between Calvano and Defendants has soured. On April 3, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint Against the Marwood Entities for Unlawful Conduct (“FAC”). The 83-page FAC alleges fifteen causes of action seeking declaratory relief, rescission, and/or cancellation of various business agreements. Plaintiffs also allege fraud and make two claims for partition.

On September 19, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Appointing Receiver and Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs now bring an unopposed motion for clarification of the Court’s September 19 order.

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Calvano requests judicial notice of the Court’s Order Re: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Appointing Receiver and Preliminary Injunction dated September 19, 2018. The Court can take judicial notice of this document as a court record. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Accordingly, the request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs request clarification of the Court’s September 19, 2018 order. Plaintiffs acknowledge there is no authority for such a motion, but contend the Court has the inherent right to reconsider and modify its ruling. While this is true as a general matter (see Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107), Plaintiffs do not contend any particular portion of the Court’s order was in error or should be modified.

Rather, Plaintiffs list a number of questions asking whether the Court made certain findings of fact or whether the parties will have the opportunity to litigate certain issues in the future. These are not questions for clarification of the order, but instead go to issues outside the scope of the order. In part, the questions are akin to a request for an advisory opinion. However, “[t]he rendering of advisory opinions falls within neither the functions nor the jurisdiction of this [C]ourt.” (Younger v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 102, 119.)

There is no authority supporting Plaintiffs’ motion for “clarification.” Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

The Court will prepare the final order if this tentative ruling is not contested.