Chamberlin v. Hartog, Baer & Hand, APC
| Decision Date | 22 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-cv-08243-JCS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER CHAMBERLIN, Plaintiff, v. HARTOG, BAER & HAND, APC, et al., Defendants. |
CHRISTOPHER CHAMBERLIN, Plaintiff,
v.
HARTOG, BAER & HAND, APC, et al., Defendants.
No. 19-cv-08243-JCS
United States District Court, N.D. California
February 22, 2022
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
Re: Dkt. Nos. 105, 106, 107
JOSEPH C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Christopher Chamberlin, pro se, brought this case asserting claims for malpractice and related theories against his former attorneys in a probate matter concerning his late mother's estate. The remaining defendants at this point in the case are Hartog, Baer & Hand, APC ("HBH"), John Hartog, and David Baer. Chamberlin moves to exclude testimony by Defendants' expert witness, and both sides move for summary judgment.
The Court finds these motions suitable for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for February 25, 2022. For the reasons discussed below, Chamberlin's motion to exclude expert testimony is GRANTED in large part. His motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to his malpractice claim against Baer and HBH with respect to a $2, 831.91 award of costs against him, and as to Defendants' counterclaim for account stated. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all other aspects of Chamberlin's malpractice claim they addressed-i.e., all other aspects except punitive damages. If Chamberlin wishes to pursue such damages, he must show cause why the Court should not grant summary judgment on that issue sua sponte under Rule 56(f). The parties' motions for summary judgment
are otherwise DENIED, and Defendants' remaining counterclaims may proceed to trial.[1]
The case management conference previously set for the same time as the motion hearing is CONTINUED to 2:00 PM Pacific Time the same day, to occur via Zoom webinar.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Overview
The following summary, with matters preceding probate litigation largely drawn from Chamberlin's declarations, is intended as context for the convenience of the reader. It is not intended as a complete recitation of all relevant evidence in the record. A number of issues Chamberlin has presented in the record-as a few examples, animosity between Chamberlin's wife and uncle, whether the probate judge referred to an evidentiary hearing as a "rabbit hole" or to Chamberlin's mother's estate as a "rat hole," and the disposal of Chamberlin's mother's remains-are not relevant to the outcome of present motions, and are not addressed herein.
In April of 2013, Chamberlin's mother Sylvia Jane Levin Chamberlin ("Jane"[2]) executed a will leaving all of her assets to sons, Plaintiff Christopher Chamberlin and his brother Richard Chamberlin, except that her partner Donald Partier would inherent sixteen percent of Tinkachew Creative, an entity that had no value. Chamberlin MS J Decl. (dkt. 106-1) ¶ 3 & Ex. A. On January 1, 2014, while Jane was undergoing medical treatment, Partier printed a new will for her leaving a one-third share of her estate to Partier, which Jane signed. Id. ¶ 4 & Ex. C.[3] The will named Jane's brother Michael Levin as executor, and Partier and a Michael Bishop (Richard Chamberlin's partner, who is not otherwise relevant to this case) as alternate executors if Levin was unwilling or unable to serve in the role. Id. Ex. C. Chamberlin chose not to contest that will. Chamberlin Opp'n Decl. (dkt. 114-1) ¶ 19.
Jane was repeatedly hospitalized in 2014 and 2015. Chamberlin MS J Decl. ¶ 5. On June 21, 2015, Chamberlin traveled to San Francisco and spent the day with Jane and Partier. Id. Jane died that afternoon. Id.
Chamberlin paid approximately $15, 000 for family members to travel to San Francisco and for a memorial service. Id. ¶ 6. Jane's brother Mike Levin, serving as executor of Jane's estate, instructed Chamberlin and his wife to track their expenses for reimbursement from the estate upon sale of the houseboat, and in July of 2015 indicated that he was working to find a marine surveyor to assess the value of the houseboat. Id. ¶ 7. Chamberlin offered to pay his mother's debts and the houseboat's insurance and berth fees, but Levin refused that offer. Chamberlin Opp'n Decl. ¶ 24.
In June and July of 2015, Levin was in touch with a real estate agent named Rachelle Dorris, who worked with Levin's wife at Coldwell Banker, regarding the houseboat. Id. ¶¶ 3, 41.
In August of 2015, Chamberlin checked in with Levin, who told him that Parti er had accepted a tenant for the downstairs unit of the houseboat where Parti er lived and was collecting rent, which Chamberlin opposed. Chamberlin MS J Decl. ¶ 8. In response to Chamberlin's insistence that Partier should not be allowed to take in a tenant, should be required to pay rent, and should be removed from the houseboat if possible, Levin wrote in an email on August 11, 2015 that he was unwilling to serve as executor. Defs.' Request for Judicial Notice ("Defs.' RJN," dkt. 107-2) Ex. 7 (Cross-Petition) Ex. B. Levin later testified in a deposition for this case that he "wasn't going to precipitously kick [Partier] out on the street after he had taken care of [Jane] for 16 years," and when Partier had agreed that his disbursement from the estate would be reduced to account for rent. Chamberlin Opp'n Decl. Ex. 10 (Levin Dep.) at 149:8-25. Partier took steps to become the executor after Levin expressed that he was unwilling to serve. Chamberlin Opp'n Decl. ¶ 64 & Ex. 27.
Chamberlin asked a lawyer friend, Richard Coplon, to represent his interests in administering the estate. Chamber MSJ Decl. ¶ 8. Coplon worked with Levin to try to find a lawyer for Levin as well, in the hope that Levin would continue as executor, and Levin hired J.R. Hastings. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. On August 23, 2015, Levin emailed Coplon and Hastings to say that the tenant in the upstairs unit the houseboat, Laurel Braitman, was interesting in buying it, and that
Levin had therefore decided not to resign as executor. Id. ¶ 10.
Braitman wrote in an August 20, 2015 email to her mother that houseboat was appraised at $400, 000 but might be worth more due to a second appraiser valuing it in the range of $550, 000 to $700, 000. Id. ¶ 11 & Ex. B.[4] She testified at her deposition that she never saw documentation of the higher range and believed either Partier or Levin told her that figure. Id. ¶ 12. Levin's attorney Hasting testified that the lower $400, 000 valuation was a "guess." Id. ¶ 17. Braitman inquired with Bank of Marin regarding a loan to purchase the houseboat. Id. ¶ 13 & Ex. B. At a memorial for Jane in September of 2015, Levin told Chamberlin that Braitman had expressed interest in purchasing the houseboat for $320, 000 but that Levin had dismissed that figure as too low. D'Amato MSJ Decl. (dkt. 107-1) Ex. 6 (Chamberlin Dep.) at 101:18-102:12; Chamberlin Opp'nDecl. ¶87.
Hastings and Levin filed a petition for probate in the California Superior Court for Marin County on September 4, 2015, attaching the January 1, 2014 will. Chamberlin MSJ Decl. ¶ 16 & Ex. C. The petition sought a $382, 000 bond, equal to the estimated value of the estate, which was based on a $400, 000 valuation for the houseboat. Id. ¶ 19 & Ex C.
On September 9, 2015, Coplon wrote to Levin, acknowledging that Levin had previously said he "would not continue to act as Executor if [he was] getting 'jerked around, '" and setting forth Chamberlin's expectations for a sale of houseboat, including that Chamberlin would accept a private sale "based on a contract price supported by current, independent fair market appraisal." Id. ¶ 14. Hastings responded on behalf of Levin, stating that California law provided an executor with "several choices of procedure" for the sale of a houseboat, and that all such choices would "rely upon valuation by a California Probate Referee," which Hastings understood would "ensure an impartial valuation." Id. ¶ 15.
The Honorable Roy Chernus approved Levin as executor on October 22, 2015. Id. ¶ 18 & Ex. D. Chamberlin did not receive a copy of that order, and letters testamentary were not issued until a few months later. Id. ¶ 18. Levin filed a second petition for probate on November 24,
2015, which was not reflected on the Superior Court's register of actions and which Chamberlin did not see until a year and a half later, which requested a much smaller bond of $50, 000. Id. ¶¶ 19-20.
On December 9, 2015, realtor Tom Verkozen told Hastings to expect a $300, 000 valuation for the houseboat from a marine surveyor. Id. ¶ 24. In a report based on an inspection that same day, the marine surveyor actually assessed the fair value as $825, 000. Id. ¶ 26 & Ex. F. Verkozen took issue with that assessment, and told Hastings that he believed the value was between $390, 000 and $420, 000. Id. ¶ 27. Levin sent the survey to Chamberlin on January 21, 2016, stating that he thought it "best to put the boat on the market," but that cold and rainy weather might counsel against trying to sell the houseboat at that time, and that he intended to rely on Hastings's "advice as to how to maximize the value." Id. ¶ 28.
On February 12, 2016, probate referee Andrew Rask appraised the value of the houseboat as $360, 000. Id. ¶ 31 & Ex. G.[5] Levin did not provide Chamberlin with a copy of that appraisal until late March. Id. ¶ 31. On February 22, 2016, Verkozen proposed listing the houseboat for $360, 000. Id. ¶ 32. In conversations with Chamberlin and his attorney Coplon, Levin indicated that he intended to sell the houseboat in three to four months. Id. ¶ 33. Chamberlin asserts that Levin "remained focused on" selling the houseboat to Braitman, and insuring a commission or referral fee for his wife's colleague Rachelle Dorris. Id. ¶ 34. Dorris told Levin on March 10, 2016 that she believed $450, 000 would be an appropriate list price for the houseboat. Chamberlin Opp'n Decl. ¶ 161. In March of 2016, Levin wrote that...
To continue reading
Request your trial