A San Mateo family court judge denied two requests to set aside a contested 2022 settlement agreement, citing the statute of limitations. But the ruling also put a full-day trial on the calendar — and left the other side visibly unsettled.
By Michael Phillips | Riptide
On the morning of May 20, a San Mateo County Superior Court judge denied two Requests for Order filed by Brenna Gano, the subject of Riptide’s ongoing investigative series on Case No. 18FAM01991. The motions sought to set aside a 2022 Memorandum of Agreement — a private settlement Gano says was signed under duress, without disability accommodations, and without full financial disclosure by her former husband, Paul McNab. A second motion sought expanded post-judgment discovery.
The judge adopted tentative rulings on both counts, finding that Gano’s claims were time-barred under Family Code § 2122(a), which imposes a one-year window from the time fraud is discovered to bring a challenge. The court found that while Gano’s briefing contained numerous allegations, it did not sufficiently establish that her action was brought within that window.
In her ruling, the judge also addressed the finality-of-judgment doctrine, noting that the standard for overturning a settlement is high. She found that the collection of claims Gano raised — including duress, coercion, clerical errors, and what Gano described as the “weaponization” of her son — did not individually or collectively meet the threshold for “actual fraud” required to reopen the matter.
The courtroom was quiet when the ruling came down. But as proceedings concluded, Paul McNab and his attorney, Amy Sherman, were observed leaving visibly upset — a reaction that appeared to track something other than a clean win.
What Gano Said on the Record
“I didn’t even know what I was signing because I wanted nothing more than to put this behind me and have a relationship with my child.”
— Brenna Gano
Gano, appearing pro se with a support person, addressed the court directly on several points that carry weight beyond the day’s ruling.
On the circumstances of the MOA signing, she testified that she was a full-time law student at UC College of Law (formerly UC Hastings) at the time of the February 2022 settlement conference. She had documented ADHD and an anxiety disorder, and had received formal accommodations — including extended time on exams — during her time there. Her attorneys were aware of both diagnoses.
She had none of those accommodations on the day she signed.
“I did not have accommodations when I appeared on Zoom that day,” Gano told the court. “I did not have a support person. I did not understand the binding implications of California Code of Civil Procedure 664.6 until after — within six weeks, which is well documented. I didn’t even know what I was signing because I wanted nothing more than to put this behind me and have a relationship with my child.”
She also told the court that she had been informed of alleged non-disclosure of approximately $1.8 million in earnings and a $500,000 bonus, with specific reference to interests in a company called B.O.B. Solutions from 2014 to 2016 — information she contends was not available to her at the time of the settlement.
On the discovery motion, Gano argued that she lacked the financial resources to pursue a motion to compel earlier, and was now attempting to conduct discovery herself. Opposing counsel responded that final disclosures had already been submitted before the MOA, and that discovery should have been requested before Gano signed.
The judge sided with the petitioner’s position, holding that the existing final judgment significantly constrains the scope of post-judgment discovery. Broad, pre-judgment-style discovery, the court said, is inappropriate unless the judgment itself is successfully vacated.
The Trial Is Still Coming
The ruling did not close the case. A full-day trial — described by Gano as the first trial in the entire history of this matter — was rescheduled from a prior August date due to the current judge’s unavailability after a case reassignment. The new date is December 28, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.
At the close of the hearing, Gano asked the court directly whether discovery was still permitted for activity post-2022. The judge did not foreclose it.
Gano also told the court she is facing foreclosure on her home, and that she has been “financially strangled” by the length of the proceedings. She has been unable to retain an attorney, and is proceeding without representation. The judge acknowledged the difficulty of her situation and suggested the trial delay might give her additional time to prepare. The financial strain of family court is not talked about enough. Especially if you are the party on the wrong side of judgments, constantly fighting for your rights.
Both parties were instructed to review pretrial filing requirements on the judge’s department website. In-person appearances at trial are required unless a Zoom request is submitted and approved in advance.
What It Means
The denials were procedural, not substantive. The court did not rule that Gano’s allegations are false — it ruled that they came too late under the applicable statute of limitations, and that the fraud threshold was not met on the current record.
That distinction matters. The core factual questions — whether financial disclosures were complete, whether Gano had the cognitive capacity and legal understanding to enter a binding settlement agreement without accommodations, and whether the 2022 Memorandum of Agreement was the product of a fair process — remain unresolved. They will now be tested at trial.
The reaction from McNab’s side suggests they understood that. Denied motions are rarely cause for visible distress. A trial date is.
Riptide/Father & Co. will continue to cover developments in this case as the December 28 trial approaches.
Keep Father & Co. Free
Father & Co. exists to support parents navigating separation, custody, and systems that are often confusing, isolating, or overwhelming. This work is grounded in lived experience, careful research, and respect for the real stakes families face.
If this article helped you feel less alone, better informed, or more grounded, reader support helps keep these resources free and available to others who need them.
Need help reviewing or organizing court or formal documents?
Father & Co. offers non-legal document review and organization for people representing themselves. This includes clarity, structure, neutral tone, and timeline organization — not legal advice or representation.
Have a story, experience, or resource to share?
Submissions are reviewed with care and discretion. We respect privacy and handle sensitive information responsibly.
Discover more from Fatherand.Co
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
