Tentative Rulings

These are the Court’s tentative rulings.  In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309 by 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing.  If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court.  Any argument is limited to five (5) minutes per party, unless the Court determines additional argument time is needed.  See California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Personal appearances are permitted.  You may also appear via video by arranging a remote Zoom appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument is made by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net 

Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not be able to provide court reporters for probate or civil law and motion hearings and does not provide court reporters for case management conferences.  Any litigant who wants a record of a law and motion matter or a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense.  See Local Rule 10.00.3 B.

FOR ALL LAW AND MOTION MATTERS, UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED, THE PREVAILING PARTY SHALL SUBMIT A FORMAL ORDER SETTING OUT VERBATIM THE TENTATIVE RULING ANNOUNCED HEREIN (OR THE ORDER OF THE COURT FOLLOWING ORAL ARGUMENT SHOULD IT DIFFER FROM THE TENTATIVE RULING) IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT 3.1312 AND SHALL, THEREAFTER, PREPARE, FILE AND SERVE NOTICE OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF COURT.

---

February 28, 2025 Civil Tentative Rulings
 

1.  CL0002108    Dorton Drywall, et al. vs. James Clarke, et al.

   Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave to amend.  As currently pled, the complaint fails to allege that plaintiff was a licensed contractor as required by Business and Professions Code section 7031(a).

Defendants’ motion to strike is granted with leave to amend as to the prayer for damages and the prayer for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien.  As currently pled, the complaint fails to allege that plaintiff was a licensed contractor as required by Business and Professions Code section 7031(a).

           

            Defendants’ motion to strike is granted with leave to amend as to the prayer for interest.
            Plaintiff’s response acknowledges that plaintiff is only entitled to the statutorily permitted interest as specified in Civil Code sections 3287 and 3289. 

Defendants’ motion to strike is granted without leave to amend as to the prayer for attorney’s fees.  Plaintiff concedes the contract at issue does not permit attorney’s fees.

Any amended complaint shall be filed and served within 10 calendar days after service of the signed order after hearing.

2.   CU0000128  Douglas J. Schultz v. Marianne L. Stevenson, et al.

The court continues defendant Stevenson’s January 9, 2025 motion for judgment on the pleadings and plaintiff’s September 18, 2024 motion for interlocutory judgment of partition (tentatively granted) to April 11, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  No appearances are required. 

The court is not aware of any written opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings by plaintiff.  Plaintiff shall advise the court in writing whether any opposition has been filed no later than March 7, 2025.  The parties shall address the question of whether the instant statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings is timely under Code of Civil Procedure section 438(e).  The parties may file briefs of no more than three pages regarding the same no later than March 21, 2025.

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the court is inclined to appoint Matthew Taylor as referee.  No interlocutory judgment shall issue at this time.

3. CU0000512    eCapital Asset Based Lending v. Nicole Medina, et al.
   P21-16971      In the Matter of David Freeman
   PR0000069     In the Matter of Tracy Freeman

The court previously issued a tentative ruling regarding defendants’ motion for summary judgment in connection with case No. CU0000512, and continued this matter for hearing at the request of defendants.  The parties shall appear for argument. 

Plaintiff eCapital Lending’s motion for consolidation is granted.  The civil action and the issues in the Freeman probate matters are heavily intertwined, arise from the same set of facts and circumstances, and raise common issues of fact and law.  See Code of Civil Procedure § 1048.  The civil action shall be the lead file.  The case management conference currently set for March 3, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. is continued until March 24, 2025, in Dept. 6.  The parties shall meet and confer regarding a proposed trial and pretrial dates for all matters.
 

4. CU0000656    Riley Gault vs. Mark Steffen

   Appearances are required for hearing.  The court intends to grant plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.  However, the court also needs a status as to whether the settlement remains in place and whether a dismissal of this action is appropriate at this time.

   
    

 5.  CU0001292    Carrie Criss-Harvey vs. Pacific Life Insurance

Demurrer

Defendant’s demurrer to the first amended complaint (FAC) is sustained with leave to amend in part and overruled in part.

           

The demurrer as to the cause of action for breach of contract is overruled.  “In an action based on a written contract, [such as here,] a plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.” Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198–199. 

“A person who is not a party to a contract[, such as a beneficiary to an insurance contract,] may … have certain rights thereunder, and may sue to enforce those rights, where the contract is made expressly for her benefit.”  Mercury Casualty Co. v. Maloney (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 799, 802; see Civil Code section 1559; Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1070; Austero v. Nat'l Casualty Co. (1978) 62 Cal. App. 3d 511, 515-16.   

The demurrer regarding the cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is overruled.  Plaintiff has adequately alleged “the insurer withheld payment of an insured's claim unreasonably and in bad faith.”  Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1151

The demurrer is sustained regarding the causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation with leave to amend.  “The elements of fraud or deceit … are: a representation, usually of fact, which is false, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damage resulting from that justifiable reliance.”   Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 72–73. “Every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged in the proper manner and the facts constituting the fraud must be alleged with sufficient specificity to allow defendant to understand fully the nature of the charge made.” Id. at 73.  At bar, plaintiff has not specifically pled and delineated the precise nature of the purported fraud.  Plaintiff must ensure that there are sufficient allegations of fact related to each element as to her claim, and ensure that she carefully delineates facts that relate to plaintiff versus those that relate to decedent. 

As to the cause of action for negligence, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.  Under limited circumstances, an insured or a beneficiary can sometimes pursue a negligence claim against an insurer.  See Benavides v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1251.  As a general matter, an insurer has a duty “not to unreasonably withhold the payment of benefits due.”  Ibid.  That said, “the California Supreme Court has identified the limited circumstances where the litigants' relationship, which has its basis in a contract, can give rise to a tort claim.”  Ibid.  At bar, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate the nature of Pacific Life’s duty of care owed to plaintiff directly, separate from any duty to decedent, as well as the remaining elements of breach, harm and causation.

Any amended complaint shall be served and filed within 10 calendar days after service of the signed order after hearing.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is continued upon request of defendant. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h) provides: “If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just…” 

Here, the court finds that a continuance is appropriate.  The motion is premature; the pleadings are not finalized.  Furthermore, defendant has asserted that time for discovery is necessary to oppose the motion.

The motion for summary judgment is continued until June 6, 2025, at 10:00 am in Dept. 6.  Any opposition and reply shall be filed and served per CCP section 437c, based on the new hearing date.

      6.   CU18-082824 Samuel Macgregor vs. Charles Elwood Yeager

Cross-Complainant Yeager’s unopposed motion to amend the judgment to correct the APN number of the property at issue is granted as prayed. 

February 21, 2025 Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

1.  CL21-085997        Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. vs. Kimberlly Keane

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to set aside dismissal and enter judgment pursuant the Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted. 

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that if parties to pending litigation stipulate for settlement of the case or a part of the case, the court, on motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.  See Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6. 

Here, the parties specifically provided in their stipulation and order that the court retain jurisdiction over the settlement.  The court has received a declaration stating that the terms of the judgment have been defaulted upon.  As such, judgment pursuant to the terms of the stipulation is appropriate.

Judgment is entered against defendant in the amount of $2,336.37.

 

2.  CU0000512           eCapital Asset Based Lending v. Nicole Medina, et al.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice filed on January 31, 2025, are granted in their entirety.  Exhibits D through M are court documents that are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code section 452(d), which authorizes judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States and of any state in the United States.” 

The court notes, however, that none of the documents needed to be considered as part of the decision noted below. 

Standard of Review

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.  In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings to be addressed; (2) determine whether moving party showed facts justifying a judgment in movant's favor; and (3) determine whether the opposing party demonstrated the existence of a triable, material issue of fact. See Sun v. City of Oakland (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1182-83; McGarry v. Sax (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 983, 994; Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 289, 294. 

Factual Background

Decedent David Freeman passed away on September 7, 2021.  His will was admitted to probate on December 17, 2021.  It is undisputed that notice of administration was not provided to Plaintiff.   Plaintiff eCapital Lending filed their creditor claim against the Estate of David Freeman on July 15, 2022.  Defendant Administrator rejected the claim on October 20, 2022.  The present creditor action was filed on January 17, 2023.

Statute of Limitations

Defendants seek summary judgment on all claims.  They argue: “Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit more than 1 year and four months after David Freeman's death, not within one year of decedent's death as required by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §366.2, and that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the one-year limitation period was tolled for any reason.”  The court is not persuaded. 

The applicable standard for this matter is set forth in Dobler v. Arluk Medical Center Industrial Group, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 530:

The Legislature enacted a comprehensive scheme designed to expedite the administration of estates while providing beneficiaries and administrators some protection from unknown creditor claims.

Probate Code section 9100 provides that a creditor must file a claim in the probate estate proceedings within either four months after the court appoints a general personal representative, or within 60 days after notice of administration is given to the creditor, whichever is later. The short time limitation in section 9100 for filing claims is designed to expedite the distribution of estate assets by requiring creditors to promptly assert their claims against a decedent.

Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2 provides for an outside time limit of one year for filing any type of claim against a decedent. This section provides in pertinent part: “If a person against whom an action may be brought on a liability of the person, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, and whether accrued or not accrued, dies before the expiration of the applicable limitations period, and the cause of action survives, an action may be commenced within one year after the date of death, and the limitations period that would have been applicable does not apply.”

This uniform one-year statute of limitations applies to actions on all claims against the decedent which survive the decedent's death. This limitations period, however, is tolled by [among other things,] (1) the timely filing of a creditor claim [, Prob. Code § 9100] ….  Thus, if a claim is timely filed in the probate proceedings, it remains timely filed even though the representative or court acts on a claim by allowing, approving or rejecting the claim outside the limitations period. [Probate Code § 9102; see also § 9352 (a)].  On the other hand, if a claim is not filed in a probate proceeding within either the claims filing period of Probate Code section 9100, or within the one-year limitation period of  Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2, a creditor will be forever barred from asserting a claim against the decedent. [Prob. Code § 9253].

Although restrictive, these short limitation periods protect a decedent's heirs, beneficiaries and devisees from unknown and unfiled claims. They also enable the expeditious administration of probate estates.

A properly filed claim in the probate proceeding is crucial for another reason as well. A timely filed claim is a condition precedent to filing an action against a decedent's estate.

In the event the personal representative rejects a creditor's claim, the claim is barred unless the creditor files suit against the decedent's estate within three months after rejection. [Prob. Code § 9353(a)].

Id. at 534-36 (footnotes omitted, italics supplied); see Estate of Holdaway (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1049, 1055-56 (rejecting argument that “additional 90-day limitations period does not toll or extend the one-year limitations period provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2;”  “Under the current statutory scheme, the filing of a claim tolls the underlying statute of limitations until the creditor's claim has been rejected, and after rejection, ‘ “ the creditor has three months within which to bring an action, regardless of the time otherwise remaining on the statute of limitations.” ’ ” citing Anderson v. Anderson (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 135, 140.)

In addition, the Probate Code’s claim-filing period “does not run against creditors who were not properly notified to file their claims and who otherwise have no actual knowledge of the administration of the estate.” Cal. Prac. Guide: Probate, ¶ 8:23 (citing Prob. Code, § 9392 Law Rev. Comm’n Comment; Venturi v. Taylor (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 16, 18).  In other words, if “notice is not given (and the creditors have no actual knowledge Defendants’ reliance on the case of the administration of the estate), the claim-filing period does not run against them. To hold otherwise would violate due process.”  Ibid. (citing Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope (1988) 485 U.S. 478, 491.  Thus, to trigger the statute, Defendants must demonstrate that either notice was properly given to the creditor or the creditor had actual knowledge of the administration of the estate.

At bar, David Freeman died on September 7, 2021.  Defendants have failed to prove that notice of the probate proceedings was given to plaintiff or that plaintiff had actual notice of the same.  Plaintiff filed its creditor claim against the Estate of David Freeman on July 15, 2022, within one year of decedent’s passing.  That claim was timely filed in the probate proceedings.  Defendant administrator rejected the claim on October 20, 2022.  The present creditor action was filed on January 17, 2023, within three months after the rejection.  Thus, the action was timely filed under Probate Code section 9353(a) and is not barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2. 

The court need not address plaintiff’s other arguments related to judicial estoppel or issue preclusion.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

3.  CU0001134           U-Haul Co. of California, et al vs. Clifford Webb, et al

Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff’s January 9, 2025 motion to compel defendant Baga’s response to request for production of documents is granted.  Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions is granted in part.  Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses and responsive documents without objections within ten days of this order and is ordered to pay plaintiff monetary sanctions in the sum of $610.00. 

If a party fails to timely serve a response to a demand for production of documents, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300 authorizes the propounding party to move for an order compelling responses. Section 2023.030 gives the court discretion to issue monetary sanctions against a party for its misuse of the discovery process, which includes failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and failing to meet and confer to resolve a discovery dispute.  See Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010(d)(i).

On October 29, 2024, plaintiff served defendant with demand for documents, set one.  Defendant has not responded to this authorized discovery request.

While defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s motion, his failure to respond to plaintiff’s demand for production of documents is a misuse of the discovery process that necessitated plaintiff’s motion.  See Code Civ. Proc. 2023.010(d)(i).  Monetary sanctions are proper, including $60.00 for the filing fee and $550 in attorney’s fees (2.0 hours as the reasonable time to prepare the motion at $275 per hour), for a total award of $610.00.

Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff’s January 9, 2025 motion to compel defendant Baga’s responses to special interrogatories is granted.  Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions is granted in part.  Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within ten days of this order and is ordered to pay plaintiff monetary sanctions in the sum of $610.00. 

If a party fails to timely serve a response to interrogatories, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.290 authorizes the propounding party to move for an order compelling responses. Section 2023.030 gives the court discretion to issue monetary sanctions against a party for its misuse of the discovery process, which includes failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and failing to meet and confer to resolve a discovery dispute.  See Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010 (d)(i).

On October 29, 2024, plaintiff served defendant with special interrogatories, set one.  Defendant has not responded to this authorized discovery request.

While defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s motion, his failure to respond to plaintiff’s special interrogatories is a misuse of the discovery process that necessitated plaintiff’s motion.  See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d) (i), 2023.030.  Monetary sanctions are proper, including $60.00 for the filing fee and $550.00 in attorney’s fees (2.0 hours as the reasonable time to prepare the motion at $275.00 per hour), for a total award of $610.00. 

Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

Plaintiff’s January 9, 2025 motion for its requests for admissions to be deemed admitted is conditionally granted, unless defendant Baga provides fully compliant responses prior to the commencement of the hearing.  Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions is granted in part in the sum of $610.00. 

If a party to whom requests for admissions have been directed fails to serve a timely response, Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b) authorizes the requesting party to move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) states that the court shall make the requested order to deem the admissions admitted unless, before the hearing on the motion, the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served a proposed response that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. However, it is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to Requests for Admission necessitated the motion.  See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).

On October 29, 2024, plaintiff served defendant with request for admissions, set one.  Defendant has not responded to this authorized discovery request.

While defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s motion, his failure to respond to plaintiff’s requests for admissions is grounds for them to be deemed admitted.  In addition, monetary sanctions are mandatory and proper, including $60.00 for the filing fee and $550.00 in attorney’s fees (2.0 hours as the reasonable time to prepare the motion at $275 per hour), for a total award of $610.00.

 

4.         CU0001461                In the Matter of Mortgage Lender Services, Inc.

Pursuant to this court’s prior order on November 22, 2024, petitioner Mortgage Lender properly deposited the sum of $240,760.40 with the court.  The court now makes the following orders as to such funds.

           

First, Mortgage Lender Services, as petitioner in this action, is entitled to the sum of $5,740.46 which is on deposit with the court for their fees and costs related to this action.  See Civil Code section 2924j(c).  Petitioner Mortgage Lender Services, as petitioner in this action, is hereby discharged.  Id.  The court notes that Mortgage Lender Services is also a claimant to the funds on deposit as a judgment creditor in case CU0000795.  Mortgage Lender Services is NOT discharged or dismissed from this action as a claimant to the funds.

Second, Tahoe Donner filed a claim to the funds in the amount of $14,748.63, pursuant to a pre-foreclosure recorded lien.  The court finds that Tahoe Donner is a priority lien claimant and is entitled to that money from the amount on deposit with the court.  Upon distribution of $14,748.63 to Tahoe Donner, Tahoe Donner shall be dismissed from this action.

Third, claimants Reamer, Clarin, Reamer Pension, Clarin Pension, and Mortgage Lender Services filed a joint claim in this case in the amount of $52,758.56 relating to a judgment against Mark Jones in case CU0000795.  However, this judgment is currently on appeal.

Fourth, claimant Sierra Asset filed a claim in this case in the amount of $40,690.00 relating to a judgment against Mark Jones in case CL0001025.  However, this judgment is currently on appeal.

           

Thus, as the two judgments upon which the claims are on appeal, they are not final and this court cannot yet determine the validity or accuracy of the claims.  Accordingly, after Mortgage Lender Services as Petitioner in this action is distributed its funds set forth above and is discharged, and after Tahoe Donner is distributed its funds set forth above and is dismissed, then this case is hereby stayed on the court’s own motion pending resolution of both appeals.

           

All claimants shall file a notice in this case upon completion of both appeals, at which time the matter shall be re-calendared for hearing.

February 14, 2025 Law & Motion Tentative Rulings 

1. CU0000410 Taylor Strunk v. Stagecoach Motel, et al. 
    

The motion by counsel for plaintiffs for relief from an order imposing sanctions against counsel and plaintiffs for $4,120.00, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), is DENIED.   

First, the mandatory provisions under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) based on attorney fault only applies to judgments, dismissals, and defaults.  See Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1419; Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 254.  Thus, the present motion, related to a court order, must be decided under the discretionary standard.   

Second, discretionary relief under section 473(b) is not warranted.  Section 473(b) states in pertinent part: “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a … order, … taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Huh, 158 Cal.App.4th at 1418.  “A party seeking discretionary relief on the ground of attorney error must demonstrate that the error was excusable, since the attorney's negligence is imputed to the client.”  Id. at 1419. “ ‘The inexcusable neglect of an attorney is usually not a proper basis for granting the client's motion under section 473.’ ”  Ibid. “ ‘ “The moving party has a double burden: He must show a satisfactory excuse for his default, and he must show diligence in making the motion after discovery of the default.” ’ ” Id. at 1420.   

Here, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate diligence in timely making the motion for relief.  The court entered its original order for sanctions on August 1, 2024.  No satisfactory justification has been offered to explain why counsel waited to seek relief from the same until November 22, 2024.   

Moreover, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any excusable mistake, inadvertence or neglect by counsel in connection with the filing of discovery responses or motion oppositions.   

To the extent counsel seeks reconsideration of the August 2024 sanctions order under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, that request is untimely and unsupported by good cause.   

The motion for relief from the sanctions order is DENIED. 

2. CU0000564 Ton Cho Saelee vs. Henry Eddie et al 
    
   The motion for summary judgment has been continued by stipulation and order to August 8, 2025, at 10:00 am in Dept. 6.   
    

3. CU0001501 Zena Hashim vs. Paul Anthony Bernucci 
    
   The Court notes that this matter was improperly set for hearing at 9:00 a.m.  If oral argument is requested, such argument shall be heard on February 14, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s responses to form interrogatories and request for production of documents is GRANTED.  Responses and documents, without objections, shall be produced no later than February 24, 2025.   

Plaintiff’s motion to deem admissions admitted is DENIED.  Responses were served on January 31, 2025 and the motion is moot.   

Contrary to the suggestion of the defense, no meet and confer effort was required by plaintiff’s counsel, as no responses were served prior to the filing of the motions.  See, e.g., Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.   

Pursuant to Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), the court hereby awards plaintiff sanctions in the total amount of $1,870.00 ($1,750.00 for attorneys’ fees (3.5 hours total) plus $120.00 for filing fees), payable by defendant forthwith.   

4. SC0000372 Thomas Deal v. Fred Gerkensmeyer   

Plaintiff’s November 13, 2024 motion for reconsideration is DENIED.   
 
“Our small claims system is designed for the speedy final resolution of minor disputes.” ERA-Trotter Girouard Assoc. v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1851, 1855, citing Eloby v. Superior Court (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 972, 976. “A plaintiff who loses has no right of appeal; a defendant who appears at the hearing and loses has the right to appeal to the superior court.”  Ibid.  “That “appeal” is one in name only: A small claims appeal is, in fact, a trial de novo in superior court.”  Ibid.  “At the end of that trial—the second trial of the cause between the litigants—the superior court issues its judgment.”  Ibid.  “By statute, that judgment is ‘final and not appealable.’ ” Ibid., citing Code. Civ. Proc. § 116.780(a).   

“[A] small claims appeal judgment may not be reconsidered on a motion for new trial or a motion to vacate under section 663.”  Id. at 1854. “[A] judgment rendered in a superior court on a small claims appeal [also] may not be attacked by a motion to vacate under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.”  Id. at 1853 “In short, the legislative mandate that a judgment on a small claims appeal be ‘final and not appealable’… means the judgment is immune from virtually any postjudgment attack.”  Id. at 1854.   
The Eloby court interpreted the phrase “final and not appealable” to mean that the superior court was without jurisdiction to entertain either a motion for new trial or a motion to vacate judgment filed under section 663.2  [Eloby, 78 Cal.App.3d at  975–976].  The Eloby decision was based not only on the principles of statutory construction but on the general principle that small claims proceedings be both speedy and final. [Id. at 976].  “ ‘[T]he very purpose of the Small Claims Law ... is to make quick and speedy and inexpensive the settlement of disputes, and if all of the normal post-judgment proceedings were to be made available in small claims cases, that would be not only the motion for new trial ..., but ... also there would be the power in the court to vacate the judgment under other sections of the code and there would virtually be no time when either the plaintiff or the defendant would know when the decision was final....’ ” [Ibid.] 
ERA-Trotter Girouard Assoc. v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1851, 1855–1856 (citations modified). 

At bar, plaintiff appealed an adverse April 29, 2024 small claims court judgment.  Following a trial de novo, Judge La Porte filed a September 26, 2024 written decision.  Plaintiff’s first “motion for reconsideration,” filed October 2, 2024, was heard and denied by Judge Anderson.  Plaintiff’s “amendment to motion for reconsideration,” filed October 22, 2024, was then heard and denied by Judge LaPorte on November 1, 2024.  Before the court is plaintiff’s “motion for reconsideration,” filed November 13, 2024, effectively his third motion for reconsideration of his appeal. 

The court has considered the motion in its entirety, the underlying decision of Judge La Porte in September and all motions and proceedings thereafter.  The court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the instant motion.  The motion is DENIED.   

5. PR0000497 Estate of Timothy Jordan 
    
   Before the court is a petition by Tessa Jordan, the administrator of decedent Timothy Jordan, for determination of entitlement to “estate distribution,” for confirmation of sale of real property by administrator, and for an order “evicting person residing in premises in order to complete sale.”  More specifically, petitioner requests the probate court to: confirm a judgment of dissolution from Nevada County Case No. FL 14-011262  between decedent Timothy Jordan and Cassandra Jordan, his former spouse; enforce the sale of real property under that judgment; and evict Ms. Jordan consistent with that judgment.  Cassandra Jordan has filed an opposition.  The petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on procedural grounds only.   

 The superior court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction in proceedings for, among other things, dissolution of marriage and division of property.  See Fam. Code §§200, 2010; Marriage of Lackey (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 698, 702.  In this court, all family law matters filed in (or transferred to) Nevada City are assigned to the family law department.  See Local Rule 5.00.  To the extent there is a dispute regarding a party’s noncompliance with a family law order, that is “an issue traditionally and properly within the province of the court which made the order.”  Marriage of Lackey, 143 Cal.App.3d at 706. Thus, insofar as petitioner seeks to enforce the judgment of dissolution, the probate court lacks jurisdiction; the family law court has jurisdiction.  Petitioner is welcome to file an appropriate motion for relief in the family law action to enforce its judgment and to obtain possession of any property rightfully belonging to decedent and his estate.  The administration of any estate assets, including those that may be obtained from enforcement of the family law judgment, will be handled in the instant probate case.      

---

February 7, 2025 Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

1. Case No.  CU0000191                   Elliott v. Nevarez     

A tentative ruling will be posted at approximately 3:00 p.m. 

 2. Case No.  CU0001661                   Wagner v. McKnight                       

Pursuant to the January 31, 2025 stipulation of the parties, the demurrer of defendants County of Nevada and Walsh is dropped from calendar.  The court will re-set the hearing on the demurrer upon request following resolution of bankruptcy proceedings for defendant Wellpath Management, Inc. and/or other defendants.  No appearances are required.

January 31, 2025 Dept. 6 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1.         CU0000410    Taylor Strunk v. Stagecoach Motel, et al.

No appearances are required or authorized.  On the court’s motion, plaintiffs’ November 22, 2024 motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is continued to February 14, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., in Dept. 6.

2.         CU0000982    James Mistron, et al. vs. General Motors, LLC

No appearances are required or authorized.  A hearing was originally scheduled at the request of plaintiffs for their potential motion for a directed verdict.  Plaintiffs have not filed a motion.  The hearing is vacated.   Defendant is directed to file an appropriate judgment, approved as to form by plaintiffs, by no later than February 14, 2024.  The clerk shall serve a copy of the minutes on all parties.    

3.         CU0001533    In the Matter of Mark O'Geen

Argument for the petition for a writ of mandate is continued from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., January 31, 2025, in Dept. 6.  Appearances are required. 

4.         SC0000372     Thomas Deal v. Fred Gerkensmeyer

No appearances are required or authorized.  On the court’s motion, plaintiff’s November 13, 2024 (third) motion for reconsideration of Judge La Porte’s September 26, 2024 ruling regarding trial de novo is continued to February 14, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., in Dept. 6.

January 24, 2025 Dept. 6 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1.  CL0001447           Vanessa Starkey vs. Jeremiah Storer

No appearances are required.  Defendant’s December 17, 2024 motion to strike plaintiff’s request to set trial and motion to re-open discovery was advanced to December 20, 2024 and denied on that date.  The current hearing date is vacated.

2.  CL0001974           Tri Counties Bank vs. Visitacion B. Lupton

Defendant’s December 19, 2024 motion to set aside default is denied.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) allows a court, “upon terms as may be just”, to set aside a default and default judgment entered against a party through that party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  The motion must be made within a reasonable time not to exceed six months, and it must include a copy of the proposed answer.

While a trial court has broad discretion to grant relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), a defendant must show that they exercised due diligence in seeking relief after learning of the default. See Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 503. 

Defendant’s motion does not attach a copy of her proposed answer, although it does note that she will file form UD-105 if her motion is granted.  Thus, she has failed to fulfill this prerequisite to relief.   

Defendant, a self-represented party, bases her motion on the ground of surprise and excusable neglect arguing that she did not understand that she was supposed to file a responsive pleading.  The court is not persuaded.  Defendant filed a September 20 and October 21, 2024 motion to quash service of summons and demurrer.  When the court denied the same on November 8, 2024, the court specifically directed defendant to file an answer by November 18, 2024.  Defendant has offered no credible explanation and no excusable basis for her failure.  

In addition, it is clear that this is a situation where plaintiff would suffer some prejudice were relief granted.  A foreclosure sale for the instant property transpired in June 2024.  Following unlawful judgment litigation, a judgment for possession by default entered in favor of plaintiff, a writ issued, lockout has been effectuated and plaintiff has now recovered possession.  In addition, plaintiff has catalogued the personal property remaining, has served notice to reclaim the abandoned property, and is already in discussion with a real estate broker to list and sell the real property when the personal property has been reclaimed (or properly disposed of) and prepared for sale.

The motion for relief from the default is denied. 

3.  CU0000512           eCapital Asset Based Lending v. Nicole Medina, et al.

No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the December 20, 2024 motion to consolidate for all purposes is continued to February 28, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6 after the February 21, 2025 hearing on defendant Medina’s et al. motion for summary judgment. 

4.  P21-16971             In the Matter of David Freeman

No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the December 20, 2024 motion to consolidate for all purposes is continued to February 28, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6 after the February 21, 2025 hearing on defendant Medina’s et al. motion for summary judgment. 

5.  PR0000069            In the Matter of Tracy Freeman

No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the December 20, 2024 motion to consolidate for all purposes is continued to February 28, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6 after the February 21, 2025 hearing on defendant Medina’s et al. motion for summary judgment. 

6.  CU0000562           Don Zeppenfeld, et al. v. Martin T. Reilley, et al.

No appearances are required.  The case has settled.  Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants’ further responses to plaintiff’s special interrogatories and request for production of documents is denied without prejudice as moot.  A status hearing regarding settlement and dismissal is scheduled for February 3, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. 

7.  CU0001418           John Albert Bacon, et al. vs. Statewide Homes, Inc.

Motion to Remove Mechanic Lien

John and Sandra Bacon (the Bacons)’ October 21, 2024 motion to remove a mechanic’s lien is granted.

Preliminary Rulings

The Bacons’ October 21, 2024 request for judicial notice is granted. 

The court need not rule on the Bacons’ December 6, 2024 supplemental request for judicial notice.  The court did not consider the requested information as part of its decision set forth below.

The court need not rule on Statewide’s December 10, 2024 request for judicial notice or the Bacons’ December 11, 2024 objection thereto.  The court did not consider the requested information as part of its decision set forth below.

The court need not rule on Statewide’s December 2, 2024 evidentiary objections or the Bacons’ December 6, 2024 evidentiary objections.  For purposes of the decision below, the court assumed that all evidence presented was admissible. 

Standard

“A motion to remove a mechanic's lien is recognized as a device that allows the property owner to obtain speedy relief from an unjustified lien or a lien of an unjustified amount without waiting for trial on the action to foreclose the lien.”  Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 314, 318. “A motion to remove a mechanic's lien should be granted only when the lienholders fail to make a threshold showing of the ‘probable validity of the lien.’ "  Manela v. Stone (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 90, 102.  When a lien is challenged, “the burden is on the party opposing the motion to expunge—i.e., the claimant-plaintiff—to establish the probable validity of the underlying claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.30.)”  Howard S. Wright Construction Co., 106 Cal.App.4th 314 at 319.  “The claimant-plaintiff must establish the probable validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.32.)”.  Ibid. 

The Merits

The Bakers seek removal of Statewide’s mechanic’s lien on a variety of grounds.  The Bakers argue that the mechanic’s lien was untimely.  The court agrees.

At bar, the court finds and concludes, under a preponderance standard, that Statewide timely filed its mechanic’s lien.  The court finds, based on the credible record presented, as follows:  The lien was recorded on July 3, 2024. Work appeared to cease on the installation of the manufactured home on April 20, 2023 (at the earliest) or May 31, 2023 (at the latest).  No further work was performed thereafter. The deadline to file a mechanics lien expired no later than 150 days after the work ceased.  See Civil Code § 8180(a)(3) (work complete 60 days after work cessation); Civil Code §§ 8414(b)(1), 8412(a) (90-day deadlines for recording lien after completion). In other words, the deadline to file a mechanics lien was no later October 28, 2023.  There is insufficient credible evidence presented by Statewide to find that “labor associated with the work of improvement continued up until or about April 17, 2024.”  Def. Op. 10:21, citing Murray and Shafer Decls.  On this record, the lien was untimely.   

The Bakers also argue that the manufactured home at issue is personal property not affixed to real property and hence, not subject to a mechanic’s lien.  The court agrees.

As a general matter, “[r]eal property is subject to a mechanic's lien for labor and materials only if the chattels installed became fixtures attached to the realty … and the labor performed resulted in a permanent improvement to the realty.” Vieira Enterprises, Inc. v. City of East Palo Alto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 584, 600 (citations omitted), quoting Cornell v. Sennes (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 126, 131.  “Manufactured homes are personal property until ‘affixed’ to land.”  Id. at 596. ; see Comm. Code § 2105 (“Goods” means “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale ….”); see also Comm. Code § 9102(a)(44)(v) (providing that “goods” include manufactured homes). Thus, in the case of manufactured homes, a party can “record mechanic's liens only if the manufactured homes had become fixtures attached to the [real] properties” at issue.  Vieira Enterprises, Inc., 208 Cal.App.4th at 600; see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (4th ed.), Chapter 27. Mobilehomes, Manufactured Housing, and Mobilehome Parks § 27:3 (“A mechanics or materialman's lien may attach to a … manufactured home … if it constitutes real property, but not while it remains unaffixed as personal property.”)  

Current Health and Safety Code section 18551 (a) “provides a procedure for establishing the mobilehome as a fixture that constitutes real property.”  Miller & Starr, California Real Estate, at § 27:3.   Health and Safety Code section 18551(a)(2)(A) provides, in pertinent part, “Notwithstanding any other law, prior to a manufactured home, mobilehome, or commercial modular being deemed a fixture or improvement to the real property, the installation shall comply with” four enumerated requirements including, “the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the manufactured home, mobilehome, or commercial modular by the appropriate enforcement agency….” (Italics added).    Here it is undisputed that no such certificate has issued.  As such, the manufactured home is considered personal property or a good and is not subject to a mechanic’s lien.

Vieira Enterprises (applying the common law of fixtures instead of the then applicable Health and Safety Code section 18551) does not require a result to the contrary.  Health and Safety Code section 18551 was specifically amended in 2013 after the 2012 Vieira decision and makes it clear that “notwithstanding any other law” the requirements of the statute must be satisfied “prior to,” i.e., before, a manufactured home can be “deemed a fixture.”  In this context, thus, the otherwise applicable common law of fixtures has been specifically preempted by this statutory requirement.

The court need not and does not reach the other grounds asserted for relief. 

Demurrer

The October 21, 2024 demurrer of John and Sandra Bacon (the Bacons) as to the first amended cross-complaint by Statewide Homes, Inc. (Statewide) is sustained in part and overruled in part.

Preliminary Rulings and Standard

The Bacons’ request for judicial notice is granted.

The court applies the well-established standard regarding demurrers.

First Cause of Action to Enforce Mechanic’s Lien

The Bacons argue that Statewide lacks standing because it has not alleged valid licensure as a contractor to perform installation work and that it cannot recover compensation for work that was performed by a third party.  The court is not persuaded.  Under Business and Professions Code section 7026.2(c), Statewide is not a contractor and not subject to the otherwise applicable prohibitions of Business and Professions Code section 7031(a).    Statewide has standing to sue and has alleged sufficient facts regarding the same pursuant to section 7026.2(c).   

The Bacons argue that Statewide has failed to allege that the manufactured home was affixed to the real property and can be the subject of a mechanic’s lien.  The court agrees for the reasons noted in connection with the motion to remove mechanic’s lien, above.   The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend on this ground. 

The Bacons argue that the mechanic’s lien claim is untimely because the deadline expired 150 days after work ceased, no later than September 17, 2023, citing Civil Code sections 8180 and 8414.  The court agrees that the July 3, 2024 mechanic’s lien appears to be untimely under the current cross-complaint.  Statewide alleges that it and its subcontractor were on the Bacon property seventy-seven days prior to the recording of the mechanic’s lien; there is no support in the operative pleading for the suggestion that Statewide and its subcontractors provided labor as recently as April 17, 2024. 

Second Cause of Action for Breach of Contract

The Bacons argue that Statewide cannot plead and recover damages because Statewide lacks standing due to a lack of licensure and the work was done by a third party.  The court is not persuaded for the reasons noted above.  In addition, the operative pleading, accepted as true for purposes of demurrer, alleges that: the parties entered into a contract wherein the Bacons agreed to pay a sum of money to Statewide for additional work as the Bacons might require, and the Bacons’ breach of the same by failing to pay for various items of work performed and materials supplied by Statewide under the contract. 

The Bacons argue that the damages sought by statewide are unclear.  The court disagrees.  Damages have been alleged with sufficient certainty in the claim and prayer.

Third Case of Action for Common Counts

The Bacons argue that this claim fails to state a cause of action or is uncertain because Statewide lacks standing to sue for work performed when it was not a licensed contractor and because Statewide cannot plead that it performed the work which was actually performed by a third party.  The court disagrees for the reasons noted above with respect to count two. 

8.         CU19-084309 Michael Rainey, et al. vs. Nevada Irrigation District, etc.

Motion for Cost of Proof Sanctions

Defendant’s December 3, 2024 motion for cost of proof sanctions is granted in part. 

Timeliness of Plaintiffs’ Opposition

Plaintiffs’ opposition was untimely.  In the exercise of discretion, the court will nevertheless consider the same as well as defendant’s reply.  Plaintiffs are admonished that they must timely submit all briefs in accordance with the rules of procedure.   

Motion

The applicable standard for this motion is well articulated by Orange County Water Dist. v. The Arnold Engineering Co. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 96:

“A party to a civil action may propound a written request that another party ‘admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact.’ ” (City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 344, 351-352, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 331 (City of Glendale).) Section 2033.420, subdivision (a) provides for an award of costs of proof where a party responding to such a request fails to admit the truth of a matter that is later proved: “If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney's fees.” Such an award must be made unless, among other things, “[t]he party failing to make the admission had reasonable ground to believe that that party would prevail on the matter” or “[t]here was other good reason for the failure to admit.” (§ 2033.420, subd. (b)(3)-(4).)

“Requests for admission are not restricted to facts or documents, but apply to conclusions, opinions, and even legal questions. [Citations.] Thus, requests for admission serve to narrow discovery, eliminate undisputed issues, and shift the cost of proving certain matters. As such, the requests for admission mechanism is not a means by which a party obtains additional information, but rather a dispute resolution device that eliminates the time and expense of formal proof at trial.” (City of Glendale, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at pp. 353-354, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 331.)

“The primary purpose of requests for admissions is to set at rest triable issues so that they will not have to be tried; they are aimed at expediting trial. [Citation.] The basis for imposing sanctions under [the statute] is directly related to that purpose. Unlike other discovery sanctions, an award of expenses pursuant to [the statute] is not a penalty. Instead, it is designed to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by a party in proving the truth of a requested admission where the admission sought was ‘of substantial importance’ [citations] such that trial would have been expedited or shortened if the request had been admitted.” (Brooks [v. American Broadcasting Co. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 500,] 509, 224 Cal.Rptr. 838.)

 

“Unlike sanctions imposed as a penalty for the nine types of discovery misconduct itemized in Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, an award of costs of proof for a denial of a request for admission involves the weighing of a number of factors, such as whether the matter denied was of ‘substantial importance’; whether there was a ‘reasonable basis’ for the denial; whether the party making the denial knew or should have known at the time that the requested matter was of ‘substantial importance’ and was true; whether there were ‘other good reasons for the denial’; and whether and to what extent the responding party made a good faith effort otherwise to resolve the matter. [Citations.] Also, unlike sanctions for discovery misconduct, costs of proof under section 2033.420 are awarded after trial; therefore, an award of such costs is not a device used by trial courts to control pretrial proceedings. Instead, as with attorney fees and costs awarded after judgment to a prevailing party, an award of costs of proof is a fee shifting and cost allocation mechanism that is available against parties. And, unlike sanctions for discovery misconduct, such costs cannot be awarded against attorneys.” (City of Glendale, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 354, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 331.)

 “ ‘In evaluating whether a “good reason” exists for denying a request to admit, “a court may properly consider whether at the time the denial was made the party making the denial held a reasonably entertained good faith belief that the party would prevail on the issue at trial.” [Citation.]’ ” (Grace v. Mansourian (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 523, 529, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 (Grace); accord, Laabs, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 1276, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 372; Miller v. American Greetings Corp. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1066, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 776 (Miller).) A party's reasonable belief must be grounded in the evidence; it cannot be based merely on “hope or a roll of the dice.” (Grace, at p. 532, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 551.) It is also not enough for a party making the denial to “ ‘hotly contest’ ” the issue; instead, “there must be some reasonable basis for contesting the issue in question before sanctions can be avoided.” (Brooks, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 511, 224 Cal.Rptr. 838.) Indeed, “the mere fact [that a party] presented evidence at trial is not an automatic justification for denial of the requests. Rather, the issue is whether, in light of that evidence, [the party] could reasonably believe they would prevail.” (Grace, at p. 531, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 551.)

On the other hand, “[e]xpenses of proving disputed facts which an opposing party denies in response to a request for admission are not recoverable simply because the party promulgating the request prevails at trial.” (Brooks, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 513, 224 Cal.Rptr. 838.) The opposing party must have no reasonable basis to believe it would prevail. (Grace, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 531, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 551.)

Like other evidence, expert opinion evidence may provide a party with a reasonable ground to believe it will prevail on a matter covered by an RFA. (See, e.g., Grace, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 533, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 551.) And, like other evidence, the credibility and persuasiveness of expert opinion evidence must be evaluated to determine whether it would be reasonable for a party to believe it would prevail based on it. Because expert opinion evidence necessarily covers matters that are to some extent beyond common experience (see Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (a) ), a party's assessment of the likelihood of prevailing on a matter heavily reliant on expert opinion evidence will be different from a matter that does not involve expert testimony. A party may not be able to fully assess an expert's choice of methodology and the substance of his or her analysis. For this reason, federal courts applying a similar standard have found that a party may reasonably deny an RFA based on credible expert opinion evidence, even where the expert opinion evidence is not ultimately believed by the trier of fact. (See, e.g., Benson Tower Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Victaulic Co. (D.Or. 2015) 105 F.Supp.3d 1184, 1197 [“Given the scientific and technical complexity of these issues, the Court finds that Defendant's denials were not unreasonable.”]; Scheufler v. General Host Corp. (D.Kan. 1995) 915 F.Supp. 236, 239.)

Ibid. at 114–117 (footnote omitted).

Request for Admissions Nos. 4 and 6

Defendant seeks cost of proof sanctions against plaintiff Rainey after having to incur fees and costs to prove the matters that plaintiff either objected to or unequivocally denied in response to Request Nos. 4 and 6. 

Defendant has made a sufficient showing under Code of Civil Procedure §2033.420 that it proved the truth of the matters in these requests. 

Defendant has also made a sufficient showing that none of the exceptions excusing reimbursement applies.  First, the court did not sustain plaintiff’s objections to these requests, and defendant did not waive its right to a response.  Second, these requests were of substantial importance with respect to the statute of limitations issue.  Finally, plaintiff did not have reasonable ground to believe that he would prevail on the matters that were the subject of these requests for admissions, and there was no other good reason for his failure to admit them. 

The court is not persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that he stipulated to these facts during the summary judgment motion itself.  It would have been one thing if plaintiff stipulated to the relevant facts prior to the motion; he did not, forcing defendant to seek summary judgment as to the claims at issue.    

Request for Admissions Nos. 11-13 as to Rainey and 9-11 as to Pachaud

Defendant seeks cost of proof sanctions against plaintiffs who denied the requests for admissions relating to the spring, natural precipitation and causation, that is, request for admissions 11-13 as to plaintiff Rainey and request for admissions 9-11 as to plaintiff Pachaud. 

Defendant has made a sufficient showing under Code of Civil Procedure §2033.420 that it proved the truth of the matters in these requests.

The more difficult question is whether any of the exceptions excusing reimbursement apply.  The first two factors do not weigh in favor of plaintiffs.  The court did not sustain plaintiffs’ objections to these requests, and defendant did not waive its right to a response.  Moreover, these requests were of substantial importance to the questions of liability for inverse condemnation. 

Query whether plaintiffs had reasonable grounds to believe that they would prevail on the matters that were the subject of these requests for admissions, and whether there was any other good reason for their failure to admit them?  Plaintiffs argue that they had reasonable grounds to deny those requests, that is, the opinion of their expert, Tory Walker.  As pointed out in defendant’s reply, Mr. Walker’s testimony was given in March 2024, almost four years after plaintiffs had already denied these requests in November 2020.  Thus, plaintiffs could not have specifically relied on that expertise and testimony at the time they made their denials. 

That said, the court presided over a trial of this matter.  Suffice it to say that the claims at trial involved significantly contested factual issues of great scientific and technical complexity regarding: 1) the inherent risks of leakage/seepage from the NID canal as deliberately designed, constructed or maintained, 2) whether the inherent risks manifested, i.e., leakage/seepage from the NID canal; and 3) whether such leakage/seepage was a substantial cause of plaintiffs’ landslide property damage.  At trial, the parties presented conflicting lay and expert testimony regarding the topics raised in the requests for admissions including: the exact location of the subsurface natural spring in connection with the subject properties as well as its role in causing damage to the properties;  how and to what degree precipitation falling on the properties potentially contributed to the unstable soils and landslides related to the properties; and whether water escaping from the canal was a substantial factor in causing damages to the properties.  Considering the totality of the evidence ultimately adduced at trial by plaintiffs the court concludes that, at the time plaintiffs denied the RFAs, plaintiffs held a reasonably entertained good faith belief that they would prevail on the issues at trial particularly given the complex scientific and technical issues raised. Stated another way, the court cannot conclude that plaintiffs had “no reasonable basis to believe [they] would prevail” in connection with the complex and technical issues raised.  (See Orange County Water Dist., 31 Cal.App.5th at 116.)

Amount of Fees

A party moving for cost of proof sanctions is required to identify the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in proving the matters that responding party unreasonably denied.  (See In re Tobacco Cases II (2015) 240 Cal. App. 4th 779, 807-808.)  The moving party cannot recover costs or fees for proving matters other than the matters covered by the improperly denied requests. (See Garcia v. Hyster Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 724, 736-737.)  “The requested amounts must be segregated from costs and fees expended to prove other issues.”  (Grace v. Mansourian (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 523, 529.)

At bar, the court need only review fees/costs in connection with Request Nos. 4 and 6. 

According to defendant:

NID moved for summary adjudication to obtain a judicial confirmation that Plaintiff Rainey’s 2019 Claim arose out of the same facts as those giving rise to his 2018 Claim. NID incurred the following attorney’s fees after the denials to prove those facts: $16,135.00. (Exhibit 18 [Schedule of Attorney Fees pertaining to Summary Judgment]).

In the instant motion, defendant correctly points out that it prevailed on a statute of limitations defense as to defendant Rainey’s second and third cause of action under Government Code section 945.6(a)(1) in 2023. (See, e.g., 12/12/23 Memorandum Decision; 10/13/23 Defense Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.)  Defendant has not submitted any attorney’s fees and costs associated with that 2023 motion; instead, it submitted, via Exhibit 18, a description of fees totaling $16,135.00 associated with the July 2021 motion for summary judgment that raised six separate issues including the statute of limitations issue under section 945.6(a)(1).  (See Defendant’s 7/21/21 Motion for Summary Judgment.)  Defendant has not specifically identified the actual fees/costs incurred in proving the matters that plaintiff Rainey unreasonably denied, as was his obligation.  In addition, the court observes that plaintiff devoted one paragraph of its 22 page brief to this issue.  In the exercise of discretion, the court will award one sixth of the total fees as cost of proof sanctions for these two improper denials, that is, $2,689.17. 

Motion to tax costs

Plaintiff’s December 13, 2024 motion to tax costs is granted in part.  The court strikes $2,507.12 from defendant’s memorandum of costs and awards defendant $9,918.91 in costs. 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b) provides: “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.”  The requested costs must be “reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation and reasonable in amount.” Perko's Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 244-245.  The trial court has broad discretion in determining the questions of reasonableness and necessity.  Ibid. at 243.

When items in a cost bill are properly challenged, the burden shifts to the party claiming costs to prove their necessity and reasonableness.  This requires documentation to sustain that party’s burden.  Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1265.

In the case at bar, plaintiffs seek to strike $2,646.22 from defendant’s requested deposition costs.  The invoices attached to defendant’s opposition confirm deposition costs of $8,443.22 (there was no invoice supporting the claimed deposition and travel costs for the Kull deposition).  The court strikes $1,644.42 in deposition costs.   

Plaintiffs request an order striking the entire amount of $1,763.20 for service of process costs.  The legible invoices attached to defendant’s opposition confirm $900.50 in service of process costs.  The court strikes the remaining $862.70. 

Plaintiffs did not object to defendant’s request for $153.60 in costs for exhibits or to defendant’s request for $421.59 in filing fees.  Defendant shall recover those costs, which total $575.19. 

9.  CU20-084697        Barbara Miller vs. Pamela Gorman, et al. 

On its own motion, the court continues plaintiff’s motion for a new trial to March 14, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.

The court is uncertain it has jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 659 provides:

(a) The party intending to move for a new trial shall file with the clerk and serve upon each adverse party a notice of their intention to move for a new trial, designating the grounds upon which the motion will be made and whether the same will be made upon affidavits or the minutes of the court, or both, either:

(1) After the decision is rendered and before the entry of judgment.

(2) Within 15 days of the date of serving notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5, or service upon them by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is earliest; provided, that upon the filing of the first notice of intention to move for a new trial by a party, each other party shall have 15 days after the service of that notice upon them to file and serve a notice of intention to move for a new trial.

(b) That notice of intention to move for a new trial shall be deemed to be a motion for a new trial on all the grounds stated in the notice. The times specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) shall not be extended by order or stipulation or by those provisions of Section 1013 that extend the time for exercising a right or doing an act where service is by mail.

(Italics added).

Code of Civil Procedure section 660(c) provides:

Except as otherwise provided in Section 12a of this code, the power of the court to rule on a motion for a new trial shall expire 75 days after the mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5 or 75 days after service on the moving party by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, whichever is earlier, or if that notice has not been given, 75 days after the filing of the first notice of intention to move for a new trial. If the motion is not determined within the 75-day period, or within that period as extended, the effect shall be a denial of the motion without further order of the court.   (Italics added).

“[A]n order granting a new trial is in excess of jurisdiction and void if, for example, it is made ... upon a notice of intention that is filed … too late …, or if the court purports to grant the motion after expiration of the statutory time for ruling.”  Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 337 (citations omitted).

At bar, defendant served a notice of entry of judgment on May 30, 2024.  Did the court lose jurisdiction in connection with the same given that a notice of intention was not filed within 15 days of the same, that is, by Wednesday, May 29, 2024?  Did the power of the court to rule on any motion for new trial in connection with this judgment expire 75 days later on Tuesday, August 30, 2024?

In the alternative, plaintiff filed her notice of intention to move for a new trial on November 5, 2024, apparently in connection with the November 4, 2024 final judgment.  Did the power of the court to rule on any motion for a new trial expire 75 days later (excluding the Sunday and Monday holiday) on Tuesday, January 21, 2025?

The parties shall submit briefs of no more three pages regarding these issues no later than February 24, 2025. 

10.  CU0001651         Joseph Sacks vs. Navy Federal Credit Union

No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, defendant’s demurrer is continued until March 14, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.

11.  CU0001760         In the Matter of County of Nevada

The unopposed petition of the County of Nevada for an order to abate sub-standard building and appoint Richardson C. Griswold as receiver is granted as prayed.  Health and Safety Code section 17890.7 authorizes the court to appoint a receiver to oversee the rehabilitation of properties deemed to be substandard if the property owner fails to comply with an order or notice issued by a local agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.6 after a reasonable time. 

In the instant action, petitioner has made a sufficient showing that the subject property is a danger to occupants and the surrounding community.  Respondent was given more than a reasonable amount of time (some 13 years) to rehabilitate the subject property with no response.

The court denies, without prejudice, petitioner’s request for any immediate order as to costs of enforcement relating to the subject property, including attorneys’ fees.  The county may seek recovery of such costs and fees at a later date by appropriate noticed motion.   

January 17, 2025 Dept. 6 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1.  CU0000591           Antonio De La Pena vs. Nevada Woods Apartments, et al.

Defendants' January 25, 2024 motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' complaint is granted.

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts

Plaintiffs do not dispute defendants’ Undisputed Fact Nos. 1-4, and 6.  Accordingly, those facts remain undisputed.

Plaintiffs dispute defendants’ Undisputed Fact No. 5.  However, their opposition and supporting evidence do not actually dispute this fact, as they provide no evidence that plaintiffs knew that the occupants of Apartment # 5 were manufacturing drugs. This fact remains undisputed.

Plaintiffs dispute defendants’ Undisputed Fact Nos. 7 and 8. However, their opposition and supporting evidence do not dispute these facts and they remain undisputed. 

Plaintiffs argue that Undisputed Fact No. 9 relating to plaintiffs’ reports about the conduct of tenants not living in Apartment # 5 is not a material fact.  The court agrees.  See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350, subd. (d)(2).

Plaintiffs argue that Undisputed Fact No. 10 is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in that plaintiffs cannot discern the meaning of “other incidents”.  That term relates back to Undisputed Fact No. 9.  As that is not a material fact, the court also finds that Undisputed Fact No. 10 is also not a material fact. 

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s unopposed request for judicial notice is granted in its entirety.

Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiffs’ Opposition Separate Statement

Defendants do not dispute plaintiffs’ Undisputed Fact Nos. 1-28.  Accordingly, all of plaintiffs’ other material facts remain undisputed.

Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiffs’ Evidence

Defendants do not object to plaintiffs’ separate statement.   For purposes of deciding this motion, the court assumes that plaintiff’s evidence is admissible.    The court need not and does not rule on defendants’ objections.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure §437c allows a party to move for summary judgment if it is contended that an action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.  Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(2) provides:

A defendant or cross-defendant has met that party’s burden of

showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown

that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately

pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to

the cause of action.

A defendant moving for summary judgment need not affirmatively disprove an element of the plaintiff’s case.  Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 853-855.  Rather, the defendant’s initial burden may be met by presenting evidence that negates any one of the necessary elements of the challenged cause of action to justify entry of summary judgment. See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(1).

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(2) further provides:

Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met [its] burden, the burden

shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of

one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense

thereto. The plaintiff or cross-complainant shall not rely upon the allegations

or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists

but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of

material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.

In determining a motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed by the court in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and any factual conflicts must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. See Chesny v. Grisham, (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 120, 125.  The moving party bears the burden of furnishing supporting documents that establish that the claims of the adverse party are entirely without merit on any legal theory.  See Lipson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362, 374. 

Motion

In order to establish a cause of action for premises liability, which is a form of negligence, see Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619, a plaintiff must prove duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.  See Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 480.  Summary judgment is proper if a defendant presents evidence that negates any one of these elements.  See Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(1). 

The determination that a defendant owes the plaintiff no duty of care is a complete defense to a cause of action for premises liability/negligence; the issue of whether a duty exists in the first place is a question of law to be determined by the court.  See Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1620.  Foreseeability, which is a crucial factor in determining the existence of a duty, is likewise a question of law to be decided by the court.  See Ann M. v. The Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 676-678 (disapproved on other grounds); Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Association (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, 501. 

Generally, “a duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of a third party will be imposed only where such conduct can be reasonably anticipated.” Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 676; see Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1146.  As the Court of Appeal noted in Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson, LLC (2016) 1 Cal App 5th 586:

The Court's focus in determining duty is not to decide whether a

particular plaintiff's injury was reasonably foreseeable in light of a

particular defendant's conduct, but rather to evaluate more generally

whether the category of negligent conduct at issue is sufficiently likely

to result in the kind of harm experienced that liability may appropriately

be imposed on the negligent party.  [W]e look to the circumstances of the case to see if the defendant was on notice of facts making the harm at issue foreseeable. 

Ibid at 594 (quotations and citations omitted).

The Supreme Court recently has adopted the following approach to the duty analysis:

“ ‘First, the court must determine the specific measures the plaintiff asserts the defendant should have taken to prevent the harm. This frames the issue for the court's determination by defining the scope of the duty under consideration. Second, the court must analyze how financially and socially burdensome these proposed measures would be to a landlord, which measures could range from minimally burdensome to significantly burdensome under the facts of the case. Third, the court must identify the nature of the third party conduct that the plaintiff claims could have been prevented had the landlord taken the proposed measures, and assess how foreseeable (on a continuum from a mere possibility to a reasonable probability) it was that this conduct would occur. Once the burden and foreseeability have been independently assessed, they can be compared in determining the scope of the duty the court imposes on a given defendant. The more certain the likelihood of the harm, the higher the burden a court will impose on a landlord to prevent it; the less foreseeable the harm, the lower the burden a court will place on a landlord.’ ”Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, 1214, quoting Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 269, 285.

Addressing the first factor, plaintiffs argue that the defendants should have followed their no drug use policy and terminated the tenancy of Patche and Rex in order to prevent their criminal conduct and the ultimate explosion resulting therefrom.  Stated another way, plaintiffs argue that defendants had a duty to evict tenants known to be using drugs.  They argue:

Defendants did not act reasonably by failing to follow their own polices and protocols regarding the discovery of drug use on the premises. Defendants first failed to follow their own written policies in the lease agreement which clearly stated that a single violation was a terminating offense. Defendants then failed to follow their own relaxed standards which they arbitrarily implemented where three complaints should have been enough to terminate the tenancy. Plaintiffs further contend that had their complaints about drug use by Kyle Patche and Heidi Rex been addressed according to Defendants' own standards, then the subject explosion would have never occurred.

Turning to the second factor, burden, “[a] landlord ordinarily has more opportunity to judge the behavior of an existing tenant than of a rental applicant.  Castaneda, 41 Cal.4th at 1219.  “In assessing the danger an existing tenant poses, the landlord can rely on his or her own observations or those of a property manager and, where the circumstances make these reliable, on complaints of the other tenants.”  Ibid.  “On the other hand, undertaking eviction of a tenant cannot be considered a minimal burden. The expense of evicting a tenant is not necessarily trivial, and eviction typically results in the unit sitting vacant for some period.” Ibid.  Moreover, “undertaking eviction of a hostile tenant … could subject the landlord or property manager to retaliatory harassment….”  Ibid.   

“ Not surprisingly in light of the burden involved, courts in this and other states have recognized a tort duty to evict a vicious or dangerous tenant only in cases where the tenant's behavior made violence toward neighbors or others on the premises highly foreseeable.”  Ibid. (italics added), citing and comparing Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 596 (“one mobilehome park resident's harassing and annoying behavior toward another (splashing mud onto the plaintiff's newly washed cars, aiming a video camera at his living room, using racial epithets and other verbal abuse) did not make his battery of the neighbor sufficiently foreseeable for imposition of a tort duty; it did not “put defendants on notice of [the assailant's] propensity for violence.”), with Madhani v. Cooper (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 412, (“the plaintiff's neighbor in the defendant's apartment building shoved, bumped and physically blocked the plaintiff and her mother on several occasions, as well as berating them. Despite the plaintiff's frequent complaints to the defendant's property manager, no action was taken against the assailant, who ultimately pushed the plaintiff down the building's stairs, injuring her. The Court of Appeal held the landlord had a duty to evict the assaultive tenant if necessary, observing that ‘[i]t is difficult to imagine a case in which the foreseeability of harm could be more clear.’ ”); see also Sturgeon v. Curnutt (1994) 29 Cal App 4th 301, 308 (“ When there is no evidence a tenant has violent propensities or handles firearms unsafely while drinking, a landlord's knowledge that the tenant misuses alcohol and possesses firearms is not a cue the landlord needs to protect visitors from injury. Therefore, Sturgeon's injury was not reasonably foreseeable, and the defendants did not owe her a duty of care.”)

Moving to the third factor, the court “look[s], then, to the circumstances of this case to see if” [defendants were] “on notice of facts” making an explosion related to illicit, butane, honey-oil manufacturing by a tenant of the apartment complex “highly foreseeable.”  Castaneda, 41 Cal.4th at 1220-1221.  “In assessing whether the facts show ‘heightened foreseeability’ of third party crimes, [Supreme Court] precedents have focused on whether there were prior similar incidents from which the property owner could have predicted the third party crime would likely occur ….”  Id. at 1221.  The record demonstrates that defendants had prior knowledge of marijuana smell and smoke from the apartment of tenants Patche and Rex.  That said, marijuana use and possession in small quantities is lawful under California law.  Moreover, “[n]o one had reported that” Patche or Rex had engaged in any activity suggesting that they were engaged in anything other than marijuana use and more specifically suggesting that they were engaged in illicit and/or dangerous drug manufacturing activities.  See Castaneda, 41 Cal.4th at 1221.  In short, defendants “had no reason to expect” that these tenants were engaged in butane, honey-oil extraction.  See id. at 1222.   In these circumstances, illicit, butane-honey oil manufacturing by the offending tenants was not highly foreseeable and defendants “did not have a tort duty to prevent it by evicting” the offending tenants.  “[T]he possibility of [illicit drug manufacturing, specifically, butane, honey-oil manufacturing] established by this evidence does not rise to a level of heightened foreseeability necessary to impose a duty to evict.”  Id. at 1221.  Because defendants had no duty to plaintiffs under the facts presented, summary judgment is proper.

2.  CU0001134           U-Haul Co. of California, et al. vs. Clifford Webb, et al.

Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents

Plaintiff’s December 11, 2024 motion to compel defendant’s response to request for production of documents is granted.  Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions is granted in part.  Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses and responsive documents without objections within ten days of this order and is ordered to pay plaintiff monetary sanctions in the sum of $610.00.  

If a party fails to timely serve a response to a demand for production of documents, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.300 authorizes the propounding party to move for an order compelling responses. Section 2023.030 gives the court discretion to issue monetary sanctions against a party for its misuse of the discovery process, which includes failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and failing to meet and confer to resolve a discovery dispute.  See Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010(d)(i).

On August 21, 2024, plaintiff served defendant with demand for documents, set one.  In the spirit of cooperation, plaintiff granted defendant an extension to October 25, 2024 to serve a response.  Defendant has not responded to this authorized discovery request. 

While defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s motion, his failure to respond to plaintiff’s demand for production of documents is a misuse of the discovery process that necessitated plaintiff’s motion.  See Code Civ. Proc. 2023.010(d)(i).  Monetary sanctions are proper, including $60.00 for the filing fee and $550 in attorney’s fees (2.0 hours as the reasonable time to prepare the motion at $275 per hour), for a total award of $610.00. 

Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff’s December 11, 2024 motion to compel defendant’s responses to special interrogatories is granted.  Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions is granted in part.  Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within ten days of this order and is ordered to pay plaintiff monetary sanctions in the sum of $610.00.  

If a party fails to timely serve a response to interrogatories, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.290 authorizes the propounding party to move for an order compelling responses. Section 2023.030 gives the court discretion to issue monetary sanctions against a party for its misuse of the discovery process, which includes failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and failing to meet and confer to resolve a discovery dispute.  See Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010 (d)(i).

On August 21, 2024, plaintiff served defendant with special interrogatories, set one.  In the spirit of cooperation, plaintiff granted defendant an extension to October 25, 2024 to serve responses.  Defendant has not responded to this authorized discovery request. 

While defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s motion, his failure to respond to plaintiff’s special interrogatories is a misuse of the discovery process that necessitated plaintiff’s motion.  See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d) (i), 2023.030.  Monetary sanctions are proper, including $60.00 for the filing fee and $550.00 in attorney’s fees (2.0 hours as the reasonable time to prepare the motion at $275.00 per hour), for a total award of $610.00.  

Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

Plaintiff’s December 11, 2024 motion for its requests for admissions to be deemed admitted is conditionally granted, unless defendant provides fully compliant responses prior to the commencement of the hearing.  Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions is granted in part in the sum of $610.00.  

If a party to whom requests for admissions have been directed fails to serve a timely response, Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b) authorizes the requesting party to move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) states that the Court shall make the requested order to deem the admissions admitted unless, before the hearing on the motion, the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served a proposed response that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. However, it is mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to Requests for Admission necessitated the motion. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).

On August 21, 2024, plaintiff served defendant with request for admissions, set one.  In the spirit of cooperation, plaintiff granted defendant an extension to October 25, 2024 to serve responses.  Defendant has not responded to this authorized discovery request. 

While defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s motion, his failure to respond to plaintiff’s requests for admissions is grounds for them to be deemed admitted.  In addition, monetary sanctions are mandatory and proper, including $60.00 for the filing fee and $550.00 in attorney’s fees (2.0 hours as the reasonable time to prepare the motion at $275 per hour), for a total award of $610.00.

3.  CU0001258           Randy Lee Miller vs. Nevada Commons, LLC

Defendants' December 6, 2024 motion to continue trial is granted.

Trial dates are firm.  Continuances are generally disfavored and require an affirmative showing of good cause if they are to be granted.  See California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c). 

The following factors may constitute good cause under this Rule of Court:

• The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;

• A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts. 

Rule of Court 3.1332(d) allows the court to consider additional factors in ruling on a motion to continue trial: 

• Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;
• The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;
• Whether the parties have stipulated to a continuance;
• Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance;

Defendants’ motion makes the required showing of good cause.  A new party was recently brought into the case, and the parties need additional time to conduct discovery relating to that party and for that party to conduct discovery relating to them.  There is nothing in the motion to suggest that the parties have not been diligent in conducting discovery, and depositions have been scheduled. 

The court vacates the current trial, pre-trial conference, and mandatory settlement conference dates.  Trial is set on September 16, 2025, 09:00; pre-trial conference is set on September 5, 2025, 11:00; and mandatory settlement conference is set on August 25, 2025, 10:00.

4.  CU22-086160        Kevin Malone vs. William Ferreira

Defendant’s October 28, 2024 motion for joinder is denied. 

Code of Civil Procedure §1008(a) states that a party may “within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.” 

Defendant’s previous motion for joinder was denied on September 8, 2023.  This current motion, which is almost identical to the original motion, was filed on October 28, 2024, 416 days later.  It is untimely and denied on that ground alone.

In addition, the motion fails to provide new or different facts, circumstances, or law upon which the court might reconsider its original order and demonstrate why, in the exercise of diligence, these new facts, circumstances or law, could not have been provided at the time of the prior motion.  The law cited in the motion is the same as in the earlier motion.  While the new motion does provide more than 140 pages of texts and call records, those records do not constitute new facts or circumstances.  Rather, they pre-date the earlier motion by four years and were inexplicably not included in the original motion. 

Both plaintiff and Stephanie Stone seek monetary sanctions against defendant for filing a frivolous motion.  Plaintiff’s request is based on Code Civ. Proc. §128.7 and seeks an order to show cause regarding sanctions; Stone’s request is based on Code Civ. Proc §128.5. 

The requests for sanctions and/or an order show cause are denied as presented.  Such motions must be separately filed and must be preceded by notice and an opportunity to withdraw.  See Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5(f)(1), 128.7(c)(1).  Defendant is admonished that he is potentially subject to significant sanctions for filing frivolous motions. 

5.  CU19-083425        Fire Insurance Exchange vs. Powermax Electric Co., et al.

The November 1, 2024 motion of defendant Powermax Electric Co., Ltd., Guangdong (Powermax) for summary judgment as to the complaint of plaintiff Fire Insurance Exchange is removed from calendar.    

Plaintiff notes that the motion was served by email on November 1, 2024; the hearing date is January 17, 2025 (77 days after service); and hence, Powermax has provided inadequate notice for the motion, citing the new notice period of 81 days under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, as amended by AB 2049.  Plaintiff is correct that notice was inadequate. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(a)(2) provides, in relevant part, that “[n]otice of [a summary judgment] motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.”  See, e.g., Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 87.  Effective January 1, 2025, AB 2049 increased the 75-day requirement for serving a motion for summary judgment to 81 days.   Of note, “section 437c extends the 75-day noticing period required for motions for summary judgment based on the method of service.”  Cole, 87 Cal.App.5th at 87.  Moreover, there is a “two-day extension of the noticing period that applies to motions for summary judgment that are served electronically.”  Id. at 88.  Explains the Cole court:

Section 437c does not expressly reference any extension of the notice period for electronic service. However, section 1010.6, which sets forth the rules for electronic service generally, provides that: “If a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission, electronic service of that document is deemed complete at the time of the electronic transmission of the document or at the time that the electronic notification of service of the document is sent.” (Id., subd. (a)(3).) The statute further provides that “[a]ny period of notice ... which time period or date is  prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days.” (Id., subd. (a)(3)(B).) The statute lists three exceptions to this general rule, but the list does not include motions for summary judgment. (Ibid.)

The statute also provides that “[t]his extension applies in the absence of a specific exception provided any other statute or rule of court.” (Id., subd. (a)(3)(C).)

Id. at 87–88 (italics added).

Of significance, “in light of the express statutory language, trial courts do not have authority to shorten the minimum notice period for summary judgment hearings.”  Urshan v. Musicians' Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 765, quoting McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 112, 118 (italics added).  Moreover, if the notice given is invalid, a trial court has no authority to continue the hearing for the required number of deficient days in order to cure the defect.  See Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267-1268. 

The minimum notice period can be shortened only if the parties “expressly consent” to the same.  Urshan, 120 Cal.App.4th at 768 (“[W]aiver of the right to the statutorily mandated minimum notice period for summary judgment hearings should not be inferred from silence. Waiver of minimum notice in this context should only be based on the affirmative assent of the affected parties.”).  Absent the same, if defendant wishes to refile the motion, “the notice period ha[s] to begin anew, and 75 days is mandatory where notice is given personally.” Robinson, 168 Cal.App.4th at 1268. 

Lastly, a motion filed with inadequate notice can, in the discretion of the court, be taken off calendar.  See ibid.(“If the trial court did not want to continue the impending trial date for the necessary amount of time [to hear a summary judgment motion with invalid notice], it could have taken the motion off calendar.”); R & A Vending Services, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1188, 1193–1194 (“ ‘The court for good cause has discretion in the control and regulation of its calendar or docket.  It is permissible for good cause to delay a trial or hearing to a later date or to drop or strike a case from the calendar, to be restored on motion of one or more of the litigants or on the court's own motion.’ ”) (citations omitted).

At bar, the summary judgment motion is set for Friday, January 17, 2025.  Utilizing the basic

75-day notice period (and excluding the day of the hearing), 75 days prior to January 17, 2025 would be Sunday, November 3, 2024.  See Code Civ. Proc § 12c(a).  Both that Sunday and Saturday, November 2, 2024 are excluded from the computation.  See Code Civ. Proc § 12. Thus, the last day to give notice under the 75-day basic period would be Friday, November 1, 2024.  See Code Civ. Proc § 12c(a).  Because electronic service was utilized, the notice period then must be extended by two court days.  See Code Civ. Proc §§ 12c(b), 1010.6.  Two court days prior thereto would be Wednesday, October 30, 2024.  Thus, the latest date for service of the motion and all supporting papers was October 30, 2024.  Powermax served the papers two days late, on November 1, 2024. 

Even though plaintiff has filed an opposition, it has not expressly waived its right to the statutorily mandated minimum notice period for summary judgment hearings. The court cannot simply continue the hearing for the required notice period, because that would extend the hearing date well beyond the current trial date of February 18, 2025.  Powermax, of course, can seek relief in connection with the trial date if it wishes.  The court, however, will not continue the trial date on its own motion and without input from all parties.

Under these circumstances, the motion has been untimely served and is removed from calendar on that ground. fn1

________________________________________________

fn1  The same result would transpire were the court to conclude that the new 81-day period applied.  Contrary to the suggestion of plaintiff, however, it does not appear that the new notice requirements apply here.  “[S]tatutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly made to appear that such was the legislative intent.” Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (1947) 30 Cal.2d 388, 393.  Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure section 3 provides that no part of the code is retroactive “unless expressly so declared.”  The court has not been directed to any authority suggesting that the legislature intended this new time-period to be applied retrospectively. 

These are the Court’s tentative rulings.  In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309 by 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing.  If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court.  Any argument is limited to five (5) minutes per party, unless the Court determines additional argument time is needed.  See California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Personal appearances are permitted.  You may also appear via video by arranging a remote Zoom appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument is made by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not be able to provide court reporters for probate or civil law and motion hearings and does not provide court reporters for case management conferences.  Any litigant who wants a record of a law and motion matter or a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense.  See Local Rule 10.00.3 B.

FOR ALL LAW AND MOTION MATTERS, UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED, THE PREVAILING PARTY SHALL SUBMIT A FORMAL ORDER SETTING OUT VERBATIM THE TENTATIVE RULING ANNOUNCED HEREIN (OR THE ORDER OF THE COURT FOLLOWING ORAL ARGUMENT SHOULD IT DIFFER FROM THE TENTATIVE RULING) IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT 3.1312 AND SHALL, THEREAFTER, PREPARE, FILE AND SERVE NOTICE OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF COURT.

---

2-28-25 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. P01-13326      In the Matter of Wilfred Martinez
   No appearances are required. The petition for first account and report of conservator of the estate is granted as prayed. 
    
2. P17-16181      In the Matter of Andrew Joseph Graybill
   Appearances are required.  The conservatee resides in Yuba County.  No petition to transfer the conservatorship has been filed with the court.  Petitioner shall show cause why venue in this county is in the best interests of conservatee, as previously required by the court’s prior ruling on January 17, 2025.
    
3. P22-16995      In the Matter of Phyllis Graham
   No appearances are required.  The court is in receipt of the notice of death of the conservatee.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter to April 11, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Conservator is directed to file and serve a final accounting.
4. PR0000069     In the Matter of  Tracy Freeman
   This matter will be heard at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, February 28, 2025, along with related cases CU0000512 and P21-16971.
    
5. PR0000356     In the Matter of Bailey Faith Hoskin
   No appearance is required.  The conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted.  The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next biennial review is set for March 5, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court investigation fee for this biennial review is due forthwith.
    
6. PR0000431     In the Matter of Constantin Bozidarov Popov
   No appearances are required.  The request for extraordinary attorney fees is granted as prayed.
    
7. PR0000565     In the Matter of Rhonda Myers
   No appearances are required.  The petition to approve report of administrator on waiver of accounting and its settlement, allow statutory and attorney compensation, approve final distribution of the estate and approve discharge of administrator is granted as prayed.
    
8. PR0000634     Estate of Alan Bernard
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the spousal support petition to April 11, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Petitioner has filed proof of service, but the proof of service is defective in that it does not list on whom the documents were served.  Additionally, the notice of hearing (DE-120) does not indicate how the mailing was effectuated.  See § 3. Petitioner shall give notice of the continued hearing and ensure that the petition, proposed order and a notice of hearing are served on all required parties and that an appropriate proof of service is filed to establish the same.
    
9. PR0000635     In the Matter of Sharri-Anne Renea Adams
   No appearance is required.  The court notes the initial petition in this matter seeks a limited conservatorship of the person.  The court, on its own motion, appoints Richard Keene, Esq., to represent conservatee.  Additionally, the court is not in receipt of a report from Alta Regional center required pursuant to Probate Code section 416.8.  On its own motion the court continues this matter to April 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, for receipt of the report and update from counsel.  A copy of the minute order shall be served on Alta Regional center by the clerk as well as counsel for the conservatee. 
    
10. PR0000645     In the Matter of Walter Mari Ingram
    No appearance is required.  The petition for orders accepting transfer is granted as prayed.  The conservatorship still appears warranted.  The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment.  A hearing on the first annual review is set for February 27, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.
     
11. PR0000655     In the Matter of Willah Brave Barlow Dunwody
    Appearances are required.  Petitioner William Dunwody shall update the court on the status of the final distribution from Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STPB11927 as well as proof that a court-blocked blocked account has been opened.
     
12. PR000657       In the Matter of Cottell Family Trust
    No appearances are required.  The petition to confirm trust assets is granted as prayed.
     
13. PR0000666     In the Matter of Brian Rasmus
    No appearances are required.  The petition to administer estate is granted as prayed.
     
14. PR0000690     In the Matter of Fred Dean-Turner
    No appearances are required.  The court continues this matter, on its own motion, to April 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, for receipt of the medical capacity declaration.  Petitioner shall give notice of the continued hearing date.

 

2-21-25 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. P15-15822      In the Matter of MARY LOVE
   No appearances are required. The petition for final distribution on approval of account and for payment of attorney fees is granted as prayed. 
    
2. P94-11981      In the Matter of ZACHARY SKAGGS
   Appearances are required.  The request to remove co-conservator, Miriam Skaggs, and replace with co-conservator, Jason Skaggs, is granted as prayed.  The petition to change venue to Santa Barbara is granted as prayed.  Conservatee resides in Santa Barbara; venue is appropriate in that county.  The clerk is directed to transfer all required case documents to the Santa Barbara Superior Court.  Petitioner shall ensure that appropriate orders after hearing are presented.  See Probate Code § 2201(a)).
    
3. PR0000495     In the Matter of DAVID GRIFFIS
   No appearances are required.  The petition is denied without prejudice.  The court made a January 10, 2025 order specifying a number of defects requiring correction.  Petitioner has still failed to provide: form DE-300; an amended petition with Box 9a(1) or (2) checked, Box 9a(3) or (4) checked; and all the information required in question 14 set forth on an Attachment 14, including the relationships of individuals to the decedent.
4. PR0000598     Estate of HELEN JAMES MCDONALD
   Appearances are required.  Parties shall provide the status of the proposed stipulation and/or settlement.

February 14, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings 

1. CU0000836 LEANNE PRICE vs. JAMES KITCHEN, et al. 
   This tentative ruling is by Judge Picquet.  No appearances are required. This case is dismissed without prejudice in light of the notice of settlement.   
    

2. P15-15866 In the Matter of CHRISTIAN VIXIE 
   No appearances are required.  The court has not received the investigation review report.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter to April 4, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for receipt of the report. 
    

3. P97-12637 In the Matter of MELINDA WILSON 
   No appearances are required.  The review hearing is dropped.  The court is in receipt of the acceptance of transfer to Butte County. 
    

4. PR0000053 In the Matter of MILDRED KITCHEN 
   This tentative ruling is by Judge Picquet.  No appearances are required. This case is dismissed without prejudice in light of the notice of settlement.   
    

5. PR0000637 In the Matter of LEILANI ASONIA HOLLINGSHEAD 
   No appearances are required. This matter has been continued by stipulation and order. 

6. PR0000500 In the Matter of CHARLES WHITTLESEY 
   No appearances are required.  The petition for final distribution on waiver of account is granted as prayed. 
    

7. PR0000605 In the Matter of INESIS JANIS ALBERTS DAY 
   No appearances are required.  The petition to administer estate is granted as prayed. 
    

8. PR0000686 In the Matter of WILLIAM ARTHUR RISKE, JR. 
   No appearances are required.  The petition to administer estate is granted as prayed.   

---

2-7-25 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. P14-15643      In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER HOWIE
   No appearances are required. The fourth account and report of conservator, petition for allowance of fees to attorney for conservator and reimbursement for court ordered attorney fees are granted as prayed.  Conservatee’s petition for substituted judgment shall be filed within 30 days and noticed for hearing no later than May.  The conservatorship remains in full force and effect until ordered otherwise. 
    
2. P17-16154      In the Matter of DAWN DELANGE
   No appearances are required.  On the request of attorney for conservatee, Ms. Lenore, this matter is continued to March 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to allow additional time for counsel to speak with her client.
    
3. P17-16234      In the Matter of JOSEPH RUSCICA
   No appearances are required.  The court has not received the investigation review report.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter to March 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for receipt of the report.
    
4. P21-16907      In the Matter of SUSAN WALIMA
   No appearances are required.  The court has not received the investigation review report.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter to March 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for receipt of the report.
    
5. PR0000202     In the Matter of CATHERINE MENDENHALL
   No appearances are required.  The court is in receipt of creditor claims for AT&T Uverse and USAA Savings bank, both filed April 11, 2023, which are not addressed in the petition. On its own motion, the Court continues this matter to March 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for further hearing on petition for final distribution on approval of account, and for payment of administrator and attorney fees.  An update regarding these claims shall be filed no later than 10 court days prior thereto.
    
6. PR0000326     In the Matter of JAMIE DICKERSON
   No appearances are required.  The court has not received the investigation review report.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter to March 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for receipt of the report.
    
7. PR0000426     In the Matter of RENEE MARSHALL
   No appearances are required.  The court has not received the investigation review report.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter to March 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for receipt of the report.  The court notes a first accounting is due and not yet filed.  An accounting shall be filed no later than 30 days from now and noticed for hearing no later than May.
    
8. PR0000439     ESTATE OF KATHLEEN ALEXANDER
   No appearances are required.  On the court’s own motion, an Order to Show Cause regarding removal of trustee subject to a surcharge and appointment of Laura Worth as successor trustee shall be set for March 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The parties shall file their positions regarding the same no later than 10 court days prior thereto.
    
9. PR0000443     In the Matter of ELIZABETH ARMBRUSTER
   No appearances are required. The petition for final distribution on waiver of account and for payment of attorney fees is granted as prayed.
    
10. PR0000475     In the Matter of MICHAEL BOND
    Appearances are required for hearing by Counsel for Mr. Quentmeyer, Stephanie Deathriage and Mr. Workman.  The court intends to allow an examination to occur to determine if the two named individuals are in possession of assets of the decedent.
     
11. PR0000481     In the Matter of SALVATORE ALBERTI
    No appearances are required.  The matter has settled and the hearing is dropped from calendar.
     
12. PR0000556     In the Matter of MICHAEL MURDOCK
    No appearances are required.  The petition for final distribution on waiver of account is granted as prayed.
     
13. PR0000580     In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER LEVAS
    Appearances are required.  An update regarding the status of mediation is required.  Alternatively, the parties shall meet and confer, identify all issues requiring an evidentiary hearing, and be prepared to set a hearing date for the same.
     
14. PR0000630     In the Matter of GARY BOULERICE TRUST
    No appearances are required.  The petition for approval of fourth account and fifth account and petition for approval of fees to trustee and attorney are granted as prayed.

15. PR0000672     In the Matter of EARLENE TANKERSLEY
    No appearances are required.  Gabrielle Massey, a potential beneficiary under the alleged will, and Tiffanie Bond, a potential executor under the alleged will, have filed no objections to the petition to administer the estate or know independent petition.  Therefore, the November 22, 2024 petition to administer estate is granted as prayed.  The court has not been made aware of any evidence of a subscribing witness or other proof that the alleged will, in fact, is decedent’s will. See Probate Code §§ 8220, 8222.
     
16. PR0000673     In the Matter of JUDITHE MELTON
    No appearances are required.  The court grants the petition to administer the estate as prayed.

17. PR0000681     In the Matter of PATRICIA PADDOCK
    No appearances are required.  The court notes there is no list of trust beneficiaries, original will or proof of publication submitted by petitioner.  Petitioner shall file same prior to next hearing date.  On its own motion, the Court continues this matter to March 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for further hearing on the petition.

18. PR0000685     In the Matter of JULIE MILLER
    No appearances are required.   Petitioner seeks to inspect/receive a sealed birth record of an adopted person under Health and Safety Code section 102705.  The petition is denied without prejudice.  Under section 102705, “All records and information … shall be available only upon the order of the superior court of the county of residence of the adopted child or the superior court of the county granting the order of adoption.”  (Italics supplied).  Paragraph 2 of the petition is not filled out and the court is unable to determine whether the adoption occurred in Nevada County.  Moreover, petitioner does not reside in this county.  Petitioner may refile an amended petition in this county if, indeed, the adoption occurred here.  
     
19. PR0000688     In the Matter of JAMES BRUMM
    Appearances are required in connection with the petition to confirm actions and for settlement of the account.  The parties shall meet and confer, identify all issues requiring an evidentiary hearing, and be prepared to set a hearing date for the same.

January 31, 2025 Dept. 6 Probate Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1.  P08-14754 In the Matter of MAGGIE ECHTERNACHT

On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to January 31, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.  Appearances are required. Conservatee Maggie Echternacht resides in Yuba County and venue for the conservatorship appears appropriate in that county. Conservators Arthur and Leah Echternacht were previously directed to either file a petition to transfer the conservatorship to Yuba County pursuant to Probate Code section 2211, or alternatively, show cause why venue in this county is in the best interests of the conservatee. No petition has been filed. Conservators shall update the court on the status of the above.  In addition, conservators failed to appear at the December 20, 2024 hearing and should show cause why they should not be sanctioned.  It appears that mail notice of the December hearing was returned to the court, but it is unclear whether notice was received by email. 

2.  P09-14943 In the Matter of SEAN KRULISKY

On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to January 31, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.  Appearances are required by both conservators Annette Lienhart and Vincent Krulisky.  Conservator Annette Lienhart is ordered to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for failure to appear on July 19, 2024, and November 22, 2024.  She is also ordered to show cause she should not be sanctioned for relocating the conservatee to Missouri without permission of the court. Both conservators shall be prepared to address why conservators should not transfer the conservatorship to Missouri.

3.  P11-15177 In the Matter of PHILLIP KRULISKY

On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to January 31, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.  Appearances are required by both conservators Annette Lienhart and Vincent Krulisky, as well as conservatee Phillip Krulisky.  Conservator Annette Lienhart is ordered to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for failure to appear on July 19, 2024, and November 22, 2024.  The court investigator suggested in a July 2024 report that the conservatorship is now unnecessary.  The conservators and conservatee shall be prepared to discuss the same.  If a conservatorship is no longer required, conservators shall file an appropriate motion for termination of the conservatorship.

4.  P14-15643 In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER JOSHUA HOWIE

No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the hearing is continued until February 7, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.  Petitioner/conservator’s January 3, 2025 fourth account has been set for hearing on February 7, 2025.  Mr. Keene, counsel for conservatee, previously indicated that he would endeavor to file a recommendation regarding a potential replacement conservator, proper venue and other potential estate management options.   No recommendation has presently been received. 

If any party wishes to be heard regarding the noted continuance, they should appear on January 31, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.  

5.  PR0000069            In the Matter of TRACY FREEMAN

No appearances are required.  E Capital Asset Based Lending Corp., personal representative for the estate, filed a December 5, 2024 petition for orders requiring the return of $1.45 million in personal property belonging to the estate from Nicole Medina and Mitchell Freeman.  The petition is continued until February 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. (the hearing date for the pending motion for consolidation of this case with case nos. CU0000512 and P21-16971, and for a pending motion for summary judgment in the -512 case.)

The court notes that no response to the December petition seemingly has been filed by Ms. Medina and Mr. Freeman.  Medina and Freeman shall advise the court regarding the same no later than February 7, 2024. 

A December 12, 2024 notice of pendency of action (lis pendens) has been recorded.  Medina and Freeman filed a January 8, 2025 motion to intervene, expunge lis pendens and for attorney fees.  Based on the January 24, 2025 request of the moving parties, that motion is removed from calendar.

If any party wishes to be heard regarding the noted continuance, they should appear on January 31, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.  

6.  PR0000563            In the Matter of BEATRICE ANNE SONKE

No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to January 31, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.  Petitioner Les McMurry’s December 20, 2024, first and final report of conservator of person and estate without account, petition for approval and petition for allowance of conservator’s fees and attorney’s fees, and petition for discharge of conservator requires limited clarification regarding fees.  The body of the complaint references attorney’s fees of $2,047.50.  Claimed costs are $356.60.  Thus, it appears that fees and costs equal $2,404.10 (not $2,386.10 as indicated in the prayer).   In addition, the conservator suggests that he worked 21 hours.  McMurry Decl. at 2:14. This appears to be a potential error given conservator’s representation that he provided hospice care for about 12 hours per day from approximately June 11 to July 2, 2024.   Appropriate declarations should be presented regarding the same if possible.  The court is otherwise inclined to grant the relief requested. 

7.  PR0000579            In the Matter of BEATRICE ANNE SONKE

On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to January 31, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.  Petitioner Les McMurry’s December 23, 2024 petition for settlement of first and final account and final distribution on waiver of account and for order fixing and allowing statutory compensation appears to have merit.  That said, the court needs counsel to confirm that the $6,300.00 conservator compensation and the $13,973.03 attorney fees (which includes fees from the conservatorship) are accurate given the concerns noted in case no. PR0000563.    

8.  PR0000581            In the Matter of JANET MEHR

On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to January 31, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.  No appearances are required.  In a January 28, 2025 declaration, counsel for petitioner Janet Mehr, individually and as trustee of the Carl T. and Janet L. Mehr Trust, indicates that, based on documentation received from successor trustee Steven Mehr, petitioner is satisfied that all funds from the now-invalidated irrevocable trust have been transferred back to the revocable trust, and that the successor trustee has complied with the court’s October 25, 2024 order.  The court so finds and concludes.  There do not appear to be any other unresolved issues as to the petition.  Absent any objection, this matter shall be closed by the clerk.

9.  PR0000598            Estate of HELEN JAMES MCDONALD

On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to January 31, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.  Appearances are required regarding the opposed August 14, 2024 petition to administer estate by petitioner Barbara Travis.  The parties shall advise the court regarding potential mediation and/or what issues, if any, require an evidentiary hearing, time estimates and the earliest date for scheduling any evidentiary hearing. 

There is still no proof that the September 13, 2024 Maya Fuller declaration has been served on Karen Arhns, alternate co-executor of decedent’s will.  Ms. Fuller shall serve the same and/or file a proof of service by February 7, 2024. 

No proof of service on all parties has been filed regarding the September 17, 2024 and November 14, 2024 James Parnell first and second oppositions.  Mr. Parnell shall serve the same and/or file a proof of service by February 7, 2024.  

10.  PR0000614  Estate of NYIALONG STEVE YANG

Appearances are not required.  The December 9, 2024 petition by Choua Yang to administer the estate of Nyialong Steve Yang is continued on the court’s motion until March 28, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.

The petition has a series of defects.  Petitioner must file file an amended petition that addresses the following items on the petition:  2.a.  Is there a will?  2.d. Is bond required; if not, why?  3.e. Questions regarding bond.  8. All required information including relationships of Choua Yang, etc.  In addition, petitioner must: file a notice of hearing, serve notice of the hearing on all individuals required, publish notice of the hearing and file proof of the publication. 

If petitioner needs access to legal resources in connection with these issues, she can contact the court’s Self Help Center. 

If any party wishes to be heard regarding the noted continuance, they should appear on January 31, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.  

11.  PR0000676  In the Matter of RALPH BERGER

No appearances are required.  The December 17, 2024 petition for an order confirming successor trustee and trust assets is continued on the court’s motion until March 21, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. 

In ¶ 26, of the petition, petitioner states:  “Petitioner believes that the Property herein was subject to the authority and control of the co trustees pursuant to the Schedule of Trust Assets attached to the Trust as part of the declaration of trust, and under language of both the Trust, and the Third Amendment to the Trust which listed those properties as specific gifts.”   No later than March 7, 2025, petitioner shall file a supplemental brief of no more than two (2) pages, with citations to the particular instruments by page, paragraph and/or line, and explain, in greater detail, what precise information in these instruments support the relief sought.

If any party wishes to be heard regarding the noted continuance, they should appear on January 31, 2025, at 2:30 p.m.  

                     

           

January 24, 2025 Dept. 6 Probate Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1.  P07-14596     In the Matter of Guadalupe Valderama

No appearance is required.  The limited conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted.  The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next biennial review is set for January 8, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

2. P19-16532      In the Matter of Sean Manchester

Appearance is required regarding the 27 November 2024 first and final report of status of administration; petition to determine distribution rights; and petition to settle estate, accept waiver of accounting, and for final distribution. Petitioner shall be prepared to update the court regarding the status of creditor claims by Verizon Wireless, Capital One Bank, and Wells Fargo Bank.  (Counsel previously indicated that he had to do research on the Capital One Bank's claim, which was never received; counsel believed that Wells Fargo Bank and Verizon's claims had been resolved.)

3. P21-16593  In the Matter of Norman W. Koeckritz

The 24 December 2024 first and final account and report of administrator, petition for its settlement, for allowance of statutory compensation, for reimbursement of costs, and for final distribution is granted as prayed.

4. P87-10497      In the Matter of Eric Neher

Appearance by the conservator is required.  Conservator shall confirm his willingness and ability to continue his service. If for any reason conservator feels he lacks the ability to continue service, the court will need to know whether a petition for appointment of a successor conservator will be filed. 

The previous 13 December 2024 order to issue an order to show cause for conservator in connection with his absence that day is vacated.  Conservator shall explain why he was absent from court on 13 December 2024.  The court is in receipt of conservator’s notice of change of address. 

The court is in receipt of conservator’s accounting.  At the hearing on 16 April 2021, the court ordered that future accountings are waived. 

5. PR0000360     In the Matter of Spencer Logan Edward Morris

The 6 December 2024 amended first account of guardians and petition for its settlement is granted.  Guardianship shall continue.  An annual review hearing is set for January 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

6. PR0000407     In the Matter of Conservatorship of Mattie Sommers

The 6 November 2024 first account and report of conservator of the person and estate and petition for fees for conservator and her attorney are granted as prayed. 

7. PR0000548     In the Matter of Kurt Edward Meelheim

No appearance is required.  On its own motion, the court continues the 12 December 2024 petition for settlement of first and final account and final distribution and for order fixing and allowing compensation to March 7, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Petitioner shall submit a declaration and supporting documentation clarifying the following deficiencies:  1.  The period of the accounting, 2.  Most recent statement for Merrill account; and 3. The potential discrepancy between the property on hand at 8:11 of the petition ($62,963.22) and estate balance in possession of petitioner ($243,408.44) at 6:13 of the petition.

8. PR0000634     In the Matter of Alan Bernard

No appearance is required. On petitioner’s motion, the court continued the spousal property petition to February 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Petitioner has not filed corrected proofs of service as previously ordered.  Petitioner shall ensure that the petition, proposed order and notice of continued hearing are served on all required parties and that an appropriate proof of service is filed to establish the same.  If these documents are not filed at least one week before the continued hearing date, the petition will be subject to dismissal. 

9. PR0000635     In the Matter of Sharri-Anne Renea Adams

No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court further continues the petition for appointment of probate conservator of the person to February 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court must still receive the court investigator’s report and orders that it be filed not later than one week before the continued hearing.  Petitioner shall serve notice of the continued hearing and file a signed proof of service of citation prior to the continued hearing date. The temporary conservatorship and letters in connection therewith are extended through March 3, 2025.

10. PR0000645     In the Matter of Walter Mari Ingram

No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court further continues the petition for order accepting transfer to February 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Petitioner has not filed the certified copy of the other state order or proof of service as previously ordered.  If these documents are not filed at least one week before the continued hearing date, the petition will be subject to dismissal. 

11. PR0000659     In the Matter of Ian Fredrick Ayton

Appearances are required for trial setting.  The court has not received a written update as previously requested from conservatee. 

12. PR0000668     In the Matter of Sage Marie Davis Da Rosa

The petition for appointment of guardian of minor’s estate is granted as prayed.  Petitioner shall deposit estate funds in an interest-bearing, federally insured blocked account.  No funds may be withdrawn from this account without a court order. 

A review hearing is scheduled for December 6, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Petitioner shall submit proof of deposit of the estate assets at least one week before the review hearing. 

13. PR0000672     In the Matter of Earlene Tankersley

The 22 November 2024 petition to administer estate is granted as prayed. The court is cognizant of the declaration of the Chief Deputy Public Administrator regarding the existence of an alleged 22 March 2022 will. Based on its review of the 23 December 2024 declaration of the Deputy Public Administrator (DPA), the court is satisfied that the petition has been personally served on Gabrielle Massy, a potential beneficiary under the alleged March 2022 will. Based on the representation of the DPA during the hearing on 13 December 2024, the court is satisfied that the petition has been served by mail on Tiffanie Bond, a potential executor under the alleged will, and who appeared at the 27 December 2024 hearing. No objection has been filed by Ms. Massy or Ms. Bond to the instant petition or request by either for any action in connection with the alleged will. The court has not been made aware of any evidence of a subscribing witness or other proof that the alleged will, in fact, is decedent’s will. See Probate Code sections 8220-8222.

January 17, 2025 Dept. 6 Probate Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1.  P01-13326      In the Matter of Wilfred Martinez

No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court further continues the first account and report of conservator of the estate to February 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Petitioner was previously ordered to supplement the account with the following information one week before the hearing: Amount of attorney’s fees sought as discussed in paragraph 18, account number for the high-yield savings account noted in paragraph 8, amended inventory and appraisal to account for recently discovered oil lease as noted in paragraph 9, and updated statements for Wells Fargo and Bank of America accounts as noted in paragraph 10.  Petitioner filed an untimely update.    

2.  P05-14149      In the Matter of Wesley B. James

No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the petition for removal of conservator to March 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court is in receipt of the January 6, 2025 petition for removal of conservator.  The court notes that this petition was filed less than fifteen days before the hearing date.  The Public Guardian shall notice the petition and supporting documents for the new date. 

The court continues the petition to appoint successor conservator to the same date.  The court has not received an actual petition but appears to have received related documents such as the notice and a proposed order; these latter documents were filed and served less than fifteen days before the hearing.  The Public Guardian shall file and serve the petition and supporting documents for the new date. 

On its own motion, the court continues the order to show cause for conservator Linda James to March 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The conservator shall show cause why she should not be sanctioned for her absence on December 13, 2024.

3.  P10-15020      In the Matter of Katelynn C. Hengesbach

No appearance is required.  The limited conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted.  The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next biennial review is set for January 15, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

4.  P17-16181      In the Matter of Andrew Joseph Graybill

No appearance is required.  The limited conservatorship of the person and estate is to continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted.  The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement, quality of care, including physical and mental treatment, and finances.  The next biennial review is set for November 13, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  The court investigator assessment fee is waived. 

The conservatee resides in Yuba County.  Petitioner shall petition to transfer the conservatorship to Yuba County pursuant to Probate Code § 2211, or alternatively, show cause why venue in this county is in the best interests of the conservatee.  A review hearing is set for February 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, at which time petitioner shall update the court on the status of its petition to transfer or show cause. 

5.  PR0000389     In the Matter of Angelina Starnes

No appearance is required.  The limited conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted.  The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next annual review is set for January 15, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

6.  PR0000407     In the Matter of Conservatorship of Mattie Sommers

No appearance is required.  The conservatorship of the person and estate shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted.  The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment.  A hearing on the first accounting is set for January 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The next biennial review is set for January 15, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court investigation fee for this biennial review shall be paid forthwith.   

7.  PR0000422     In the Matter of Terry Drake

No appearance is required.  The October 17, 2024 petition for final distribution, waiver of accounting, payment of statutory/extraordinary attorney’s fees is granted as prayed with the exception of extraordinary fees.  No showing of cause has been established pursuant to California Rule of Court 7.702.

8.  PR0000623     In the Matter of Susan Lesley Vega

The 13 September 2024 petition to administer estate is granted as prayed.  

Probate Code §6110 provide in pertinent part:

            (c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the will shall be witnessed

by being signed, during the testator's lifetime, by at least two persons

each of whom (A) being present at the same time, witnessed either the

signing of the will or the testator's acknowledgment of the signature or

of the will and (B) understand that the instrument they sign is the testator's

will.

(2) If a will was not executed in compliance with paragraph (1), the will

shall be treated as if it was executed in compliance with that paragraph if

the proponent of the will establishes by clear and convincing evidence that,

at the time the testator signed the will, the testator intended the will to

constitute the testator's will.

Probate Code §6111.5 provides:

Extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine whether a document constitutes

a will pursuant to Section 6110 or 6111, or to determine the meaning of a will

or a portion of a will if the meaning is unclear.

Petitioner has submitted declarations of decedent’s daughters, son-in-law, and the notary who witnessed her signature on other legal documents to support the validity of decedent’s will.  The family members also assert that decedent informed them of her testamentary intentions during her lifetime.  This extrinsic evidence establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the document presented as decedent’s will does constitute her will. 

9.  PR0000625     In Re Steel, Lily Jean

Appearance is required.  Petitioner shall inform the court of the status of her deposit of estate assets into a blocked account as previously ordered and filing proof of the same.

10.  PR0000642     In the Matter of Shauna Geary

On the court’s motion, this matter is continued until March 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  The parties submitted a joint statement regarding their inability to resolve the matter, issues that will require court adjudication and a potential amended petition.  Petitioner shall file any amended petition by no later than January 31; respondent shall file a response no later than February 28.  The parties shall meet and confer regarding the order issues shall be resolved, which issues can be resolved together, time estimates for the same, and the earliest date a hearing can be set.  A joint report shall be filed no later than one week prior to the next hearing. 

These are the Court’s tentative rulings.  In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309 by 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing.  If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court.  See California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Personal appearances are permitted.  You may also appear via video by arranging a remote Zoom appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument is made by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court does not provide court reporters for case management conferences.  Any litigant who wants a record of a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense.  See Local Rule 10.00.3 B.

March 3, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

1. CL0002091          Laurie Kristin Agee vs. Melissa Loper
   No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time.  Plaintiff will show cause why she should not be sanctioned for failing to file a proof of service of the amended complaint as ordered by the court on January 6, 2025.  Additionally, plaintiff has filed proofs of service listing Brian Loper as a served party.  However, Brian Loper is not named in the amended complaint.  Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint, if necessary, no later than one week prior to the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference and OSC hearing.
    
2. CL0002108          Dorton Drywall, et al. vs. James Clarke, et al.
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.
    
3. CL0002278          JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Vikki L. Vincenzi
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendant shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant prior to the continued case management conference.
    
4. CU0000385          Derek Olsen, et al. v. David Sugalski, et al.
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendant Wild Acorns Learning Village Inc., shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of same defendant prior to the continued case management conference.
    
5. CU0000512          eCapital Asset Based Lending v. Nicole Medina, et al.
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 19, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.
    
6. CU0000712          Sandra Demara vs. Douglas Vernon
   No appearances are required.  The court is in receipt of the request for dismissal with prejudice.  This case is dismissed with prejudice.
    
7. CU0001183          John S. McCormick, Jr. vs. General Motors, LLC.
   No appearances are required.  The joint stipulation of the parties has been signed by the court.   The court dismisses this case with prejudice and retains jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the Joint Stipulation for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.6
    
8. CU0001418          John Albert Bacon and Sandra Jacoby Bacon, Trustees, etc. vs. Statewide Homes, Inc.
   No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. 6.  The court was unable to locate an answer from cross-defendant Statewide Homes, Inc. to cross-complainant Champion Home Builders October 23, 2024 cross-complaint.  In the next case management conference statements, all parties shall confirm their understanding regarding service of process as to all parties in the complaint and cross-complaints. 
    
9. CU0001540          Bradley Dorigo, et al. vs. County of Nevada
   No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or request for dismissal not later than one week before the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
    
10. CU0001616          California Heirloom Tomato Company, et al. v. Jimenez, John et al.
    No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time.  Plaintiff will show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failing to file a proof of service for defendants Jenney Vanzant and Placer Foreclosure as ordered by the court on December 30, 2024.  Plaintiff shall also show cause why they failed to file a proof of service, request for publication or request for dismissal regarding defendant John Jimenez as ordered on December 30, 2024.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference and OSC hearing.

    Finally, Plaintiff has not filed a timely case management conference statement and is admonished that failure to serve a statement for future case management conferences may subject plaintiff to sanctions.

    
     
11. CU0001640          Evan Benn, et al. vs. Diamond P. Properties, LLC, et al.
    No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time.  Plaintiff will show cause why they failed to file a proof of service, request for publication or request for dismissal regarding defendant Diamond P Properties LLC., as ordered on January 6, 2025.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference and OSC hearing.

    Finally, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant Collins Property Management have filed a timely case management conference statement and are admonished that failure to serve a statement for future case management conferences may subject the parties to sanctions.

    
     
12. CU0001643          Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC vs. Ashley Parker, et al.
    No appearances are required.  There are no responsive pleadings from either defendant. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendants shall file responsive pleadings, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant prior to the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.

    Additionally, no party filed a timely case management conference statement and is admonished that failure to serve a statement for future case management conferences may subject the party to sanctions.

    
     
13. CU0001649          Debbie Havener vs. Shawna Sullivan et al.
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 14, 2025.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, request for publication or request for dismissal for defendants Shawna Sullivan and California Department of Transportation at least one week prior to the continued case management conference.
     
14. CU0001652          Pawnee Leasing Corporation vs. 1st Choice R & R LLC, et al.
    No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time.  Plaintiff will show cause why they should not be sanctioned and/or their case dismissed for failing to file a request for default regarding defendant First Choice R&R, LLC., as ordered by the court on January 6, 2025.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference and OSC hearing.

Finally, plaintiff has not filed a timely case management conference statement and is admonished that failure to serve a statement for future case management conferences may subject plaintiff to sanctions.

15. CU0001656          Richard Cristdahl v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Inc., et al.
    Appearances are required.  The court is in receipt of the notice of settlement regarding Defendant Capital One Financial Corporation, Inc.  As to Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc., it appears this case is at issue.  However, neither plaintiff nor defendant Experian filed a timely case management conference statement.  Parties shall meet, confer, and be prepared to select trial dates at the case management conference.
     
16. CU0001715          William Neil v. County of Nevada, et. al.
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  It does not appear that the First Amended Complaint, filed February 5, 2025, has been served on any of the defendants.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal no later than one week prior to the continued case management conference date.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference date.
     
17. CU0001750          McKellar Tree Service & Logging, Inc. vs. Blue Lead Gold Mining, LLC et al.
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, request for publication or request for dismissal as to defendant Enegix Mining Group at least one week prior to the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference date.
     
18. CU0001758          Kevin Snider vs. Linda Cavallaro
    Appearances are not required. This case is at issue.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 5-day jury trial.

Trial: October 28, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: October 17, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: September 29, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
 

19. CU0001760          In the Matter of County of Nevada
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to March 14, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6 to align with the Second Amended Notice of Hearing filed January 24, 2025.
     
20. CU0001761          Ashley Sanchez vs. Vail Resorts Management Co., et al.
    Appearances are required.  Defendants failed to file a timely case management conference statement and are admonished failure to do so in the future may result in sanctions.  The parties shall meet, confer, and be prepared to update the court on the status of this litigation.
     
21. CU0001766          Tessa Hart vs. Hooper & Weaver Mortuary, Inc.
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 12, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The parties shall update the court on the status of mediation prior to the continued case management conference date.  
     
22. CU0001768          Richard Herbert Morris III vs. William Hauer, et al.
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 12, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, request for publication or request for dismissal as to defendants prior to the continued case management conference.  Alternatively, plaintiff shall file a notice of settlement, if applicable, prior to the continued case management conference date.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference date.
     
23. CU19-083425       Fire Insurance Exchange vs. Powermax Electric Co., et al.
    No appearances are required.  This case is dismissed without prejudice in light of the notice of settlement.

February 24, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

1. CL0002266          DISCOVER BARK vs. BRYAN FERGUSON

No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendant shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant prior to the continued case management conference.

Plaintiff has not filed a case management conference statement and is admonished that they may be subject to sanctions if a statement is not filed at least fifteen days before the continued case management conference.

2. CL0002267          DISCOVER BANK vs. CHRIS PEZZOLA

Appearances are required.  This case appears to be at issue, however neither party filed a case management conference statement as required.  Parties shall meet and confer and be prepared to select trial dates.
 

3. CU0000423          CHARLES BORDEN vs. TAHOE FOREST HOSPITAL DISTRICT

Appearances are required.  Plaintiff has failed to serve the summons and complaint within two years after commencement of the action. Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420.
 

4. CU0000696          LORI PERRY vs. CITY OF GRASS VALLEY, ET AL.
   No appearances are required.  The case is dismissed without prejudice in light of the notice of settlement.
    
5. CU0001068          SCOTT ALLEN LUIZ, SR. vs. JUDITH ANN MCLACHLIN
   No appearances are required.  The case is dismissed without prejudice in light of the notice of settlement.
    
6. CU0001176          JACK TOLMAN vs. HUNT & SONS, INC., ET AL.
   Appearances are required.  The parties indicated to the court on December 23, 2024 that a global settlement had been reached.  The parties shall update the court as to when the dismissal will be filed.
    
7. CU0001308          CEPHREN JENNEMANN vs. GRO-TECH SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.
   Appearances are required.  Plaintiff has failed to comply with the previous order to file a proof of service, an application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant Gro-Tech Systems, Inc.   Additionally, the court has still not received a notice of stay from the bankruptcy court or from defendant, the party who requested the bankruptcy stay.

   Finally, no party has filed a case management conference statement.  The parties are admonished that sanctions can issue in the future if a statement is not filed at least fifteen days before the case management conference.

   
    
8. CU0001323          RYAN SHIRLEY vs. DYNASTY VALLEY, LLC
   Appearances are required.  Parties shall update the court on the status of arbitration.
    
9. CU0001544          CAITLIN PETERS vs. CARA KRPALEK, ET AL.
   No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendant Cara Krpalek shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant by April 1, 2025.  Additionally, Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal as to Defendant Jiri Krpalek by April 1, 2025.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.

Plaintiff has not filed a case management conference statement and is admonished that she may be subject to sanctions if a statement is not filed at least fifteen days before the continued case management conference.
 

10. CU0001588          BRIAN COWART vs. CLAIRE MARIE UNIS
    No appearance is required.  An order of reassignment shall issue with further proceedings specified therein. 

11. CU0001580          ADRIENNE SCHRAM vs. BRADLEY SHIPLEY, and Cross-Complaints
    No appearances are required.  Trial is hereby set as follows: 

5-day jury trial 

Trial:   October 28, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

PTC:  October 17, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

MSC: October 6, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6
 

12. CU0001683          COUNTY OF NEVADA vs. MICHAEL JAMES TAYLOR
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion the court continues to case management conference to March 21, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6 to align with the hearing on Demurrer filed by Cross-Defendants.
     
13. CU0001708          JOSHUA MORRISON-COOPER vs. LULU ROSPRIM, ET AL.
    No appearances are required. This case is at issue.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 10-day jury trial.

Trial: August 12, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: August 1, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

MSC: July 21, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

14. CU0001709          GREGORY GERALD GOTTS vs. FCA US LLC
    Appearances are not required. This case is at issue.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 5-day jury trial.

Trial: September 9, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: August 29, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

MSC: August 18, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

15. CU00017221        MAKYLA SAVITRI vs. JEFFREY THOMSEN
    No appearances are required.  Trial is hereby set as follows:
     

5-day jury trial

Trial:  September 16, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC:  September 5, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: August 18, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

16. CU0001722          MICAH ELLIS vs. SPD MARKET, INC., ET AL.
    No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal as to Defendant SPD Market Grass Valley, Inc. by April 1, 2025.  

Plaintiff has not filed a case management conference statement and is admonished that he may be subject to sanctions if a statement is not filed at least fifteen days before the continued case management conference.

17. CU0001723          UMPQUA BANK vs. JOSEPH A. MILLER, DMD, INC.
    No appearance is required. A status conference has been set for March 10, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.
     
18. CU0001726          GIANNA GARRETT vs. JACK LAIRD
    No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal as to Defendants Jack Laird and Peggy Laird by April 1, 2025.
     
19. CU0001733          WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs. NANCY EADINGTON
    No appearance is required.  A hearing regarding default judgment is set for April 11, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Dept. 6.
     
20. CU0001737          JANETTE THORSTED vs. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
    Appearances are not required. This case is at issue.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 7-day jury trial.

Trial: September 9, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: August 29, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

MSC: August 18, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

21. CU0001738          NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC vs. THE TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSORS OF GILBERT J. VEGA, ET AL.
    No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal as to all Defendants by April 1, 2025.
     
22. CU0001740          JAMIE JONES, ET AL. vs. LENA OTGONBYAMBA, ET AL.
    No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 19, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal as to all Defendants by May 1, 2025.
     
23. CU0001749          TRI COUNTIES BANK vs. FIRE SAFE COUNCIL OF NEVADA COUNTY, INC.
    No appearance is required.  A hearing regarding default judgment is set for June 13, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Dept. 6.
     
24. TCU22-8066        THEODORE LACHOWICZ, ET AL. vs. MARK TANNER CONSTRUCTION INC., ET AL.
    No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The Special Master shall submit an updated status report to the court 15 days before the continued case management conference to inform the court on the outcome of mediation.  This case appears to be at issue.  If the parties believe there are any other parties who have not yet answered or been defaulted, they shall notify the Court prior to the next case management conference.

February 18, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

1. CU0000423 CHARLES BORDEN vs. TAHOE FOREST HOSPITAL DISTRICT

No appearances are required or authorized.  On the court’s motion, the Case Management Conference is continued until February 24, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.    

The tentative for that new date will be as follows:  Appearances are required.  Plaintiff has failed to serve the summons and complaint within two years after commencement of the action. Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420.

2. CU0001580 ADRIENNE SCHRAM vs. BRADLEY SHIPLEY, and Cross-Complaints

No appearances are required or authorized.  On the court’s motion, the Case Management Conference is continued until February 24, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. 

The tentative for that new date will be as follows:  No appearances as required.  Trial is hereby set as follows: 

5-day jury trial 

Trial:   October 28, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

PTC:  October 17, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

MSC: October 6, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6
 

3. CU00017221 MAKYLA SAVITRI vs. JEFFREY THOMSEN

No appearances are required or authorized.  On the court’s motion, the Case Management Conference is continued until February 24, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. 

The tentative for that new date will be as follows:  No appearances are required.  Trial is hereby set as follows: 

5-day jury trial 

Trial:  September 16, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

PTC:  September 5, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

MSC: August 18, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

February 10, 2025 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings

1. CL0000572 GERRY REIS v. ROGER REIS

Appearances are required.  Plaintiff shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned and his case dismissed for failure to serve the first amended complaint as ordered on September 23, 2024 and again on November 18, 2024.  Plaintiff shall also show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to file case management conference statements for previous case management conferences and for failing to appear on December 30, 2024.

2. CL0001876 JPMORGAN CHASE, N.A. vs. KRISTEN HOSKIN

No appearances are required.  The case is dismissed without prejudice in light of the notice of settlement. 

3. CU0000958 ALORA WILLER, et al. vs. CROWN POINT PARTNERSHIP, et al.

No appearances are required.  Trial is hereby set as follows: 

10-day jury trial 

Trial:  August 12, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

PTC:  August 1, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

MSC:  July 21, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

The December 31, 2024 order to show cause is discharged in the interests of justice. 

4. CU0001112 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. vs. DC TILE, INC.

Appearances are required.  Plaintiff shall explain why a request for default and default judgment have not been filed as previously promised. 

5. CU0001183 JOHN S. MCCORMICK, JR. vs. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.

No appearances are required.  The case is continued to March 3, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6 for status regarding dismissal.  If no notice of dismissal is filed prior thereto, the court will dismiss the matter without prejudice in light of the notice of settlement.

6. CU0001336 TAMARA ZUROMSKIS vs. JARED SAWI, et al.

This tentative ruling is by Judge Hayes.  No appearances are required.  At the request of plaintiff, the case management conference is continued until May 5, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. for a status regarding settlement and dismissal.   

7. CU0001345 GUTIERREZ PENN VALLEY ENTER., INC., v. D&L SIDING, INC.

No appearances are required.  The order to show cause to counsel for The North River Insurance Company is discharged in the interests of justice.  Trial is hereby set as follows: 

3-day bench trial 

Trial:  August 12, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

PTC:  August 1, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

MSC:  July 21, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

8. CU0001354 CYNTHIA GUSTAFSON vs. SAFEWAY, INC.

No appearances are required.  The order to show cause to counsel for Plaintiff is discharged in the interests of justice.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to March 25, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall serve “Store Manager, Doe 1” by the next case management conference. 

9. CU0001601 IN THE MATTER OF SARAH DEAL

No appearances are required.  The hearing on petitioner’s claim opposing forfeiture is set for March 28, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Department 6.

10. CU0001613 IN THE MATTER OF JUDITH BOWEN

No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to March 25, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendant Town of Truckee has not yet filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint.  Defendant Town of Truckee shall file either an answer or a responsive motion prior to the next case management conference.

11. CU0001620 BEAU GRADY vs. LOREN RALPH WINTERS

No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to March 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff will show cause why he should not be sanctioned and/or his case dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, application for service by publication, or request for dismissal as previously ordered on December 23, 2024.  

Plaintiff did not file a case management conference statement and is admonished that he may be subject to sanctions if a statement is not filed at least fifteen days before the continued case management conference.

12. CU0001708 JOSHUA MORRISON-COOPER vs. LULU ROSPRIM, ET AL.

Appearances are required.  This case is at issue.  Trial is hereby set as follows: 

10-day jury trial 

Trial:  August 12, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

PTC:  August 1, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

MSC:  July 21, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

13. CU21-085797 KOSLIN AND KOSLIN CONST. INC. vs. GV DEVELOPMENT, LLC

Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal.  If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

14. P20-16664 In the Matter of SANDRA ROBINSON

No appearances are required.  This matter was miscalendared.  On its own motion, the court continues the order to show cause to March 7, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  All prior orders remain in effect.

February 3, 2025 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings 

 

1. CL0001118 Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Vanessa N. Taylor

Appearances are required.  Plaintiff was ordered to file a dismissal by January 27, 2025No dismissal has been filed with the court.  The parties shall update the court as to when the dismissal will be filed.

 

2. CL0001563 LVNV Funding, LLC vs. Brittany Couture

No appearance is required.  A notice of conditional settlement has been filed.  A dismissal review hearing is set for April 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The parties must file a written stipulation regarding the settlement if they wish the court to retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  The court is not favorably inclined to continue the matter through September 13, 2025 as suggested in the notice of settlement.

 

3. CU0000376 Liam Moriarty v. Tahoe Club Employee Company et al.

Appearances are required. The parties shall meet and confer regarding an appropriate trial date and schedule.  Trial shall be set

 

CU0000562 Don Zeppenfeld, et al. v. Martin T. Reilley, et al.

No appearance is required.  A notice of conditional settlement has been filed, which states that a dismissal will be filed by April 15, 2025.  A dismissal review hearing is set for April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to give the parties additional time to complete the terms of the settlement and file the dismissal.   

5. CU0000634 Marie Vieira vs. California Department of Transportation, et al

Appearances are required.  It does not appear that plaintiff Carla Marie Vieira has served defendant Estate of Judith Knolle. Plaintiff Vieira shall advise the court regarding the same.  Counsel Caraway for plaintiff Vieira shall show cause for his absence on December 6, 2024.  The orrder to show cause to counsel for Tyrell Resources, Inc, is discharged in the interests of justice.  

 CU0000642 Jeffrey Roper vs. Justis Ty Conway et al.

No appearance is required.  A request for dismissal has been filed with the court.   

 

7. CU0000656 Riley Gault vs. Mark Steffen

No appearance is required.  The cCourt continues the dismissal review hearing to February 284, 20025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6, the same scheduled time as the hearing regarding the motion to be relieved filed by plaintiff’s counsel.  Plaintiff is ordered to be present either in person or remotely. 

 

8. CU0000712 Sandra Demara vs. Douglas Vernon

Appearances are required.  The parties shall update the court regarding the dismissal promised on or before February 3, 2025. 

 

9. CU0000994 Ridge Top Ventures, LLC vs. Derrie A. Malone

No appearance is required.  A hearing regarding default judgment is set for February 14, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Dept. 6.

 

10. CU0001237 Peter Lindley vs. Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority, et al.

Appearances are required.  Parties shall clarify when they shall submit the joint stipulation and proposed order for class certification.  The court is open to a discussion regarding common legal questions.  

11.  CU0001249 Tina Warner, v. Jennie Pope
    No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or request for dismissal by at least one week before the continued case management conference.

Plaintiff has not filed a case management conference statement again and is admonished that she may be subject to sanctions if a statement is not filed at least fifteen days before the continued case management conference.

12. CU0001386 Rise Grass Valley, Inc., v.  Board of Supervisors, et al., 

Appearances are required.  The court wishes to discuss why the parties believe 200 pages of briefing (with a maximum of five footnotes per page) is warranted.  The parties shall advise the court what the normal page limits are for writs of mandate in the trial and appellate courts and, why there is good cause for any variance therefrom.  The parties shall also indicate what further proceedings, if any, should be scheduled following briefing, including argument. 

 

13. CU0001395 Eric Butterworth, et al. vs. Mountain Concepts, LLC, et al.

No appearance is required.  A notice of conditional settlement has been filed.  A dismissal review hearing is set for April 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

The parties must file a written stipulation regarding the settlement if they wish the court to retain jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.  The court is not favorably inclined to continue the matter through December 30, 2025 as suggested in the notice of settlement.

 

14. CU0001483 Susan Gabrielle vs. Phillip G. Conlon, Jr.

No appearance is required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 14, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Cross-defendant Deutche Bank has seemingly not filed a responsive pleading.  Cross-defendant shall file a responsive pleading, or cross-plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal prior to the continued case management conference.

15. CU0001485 Randi Nash vs. Emil John Vodonick

No appearance is required.  Trial is hereby set as follows: 

5-day jury trial 

Trial:  July 22, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

PTC:  July 11, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

MSC:  June 30, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6 

16. CU0001600 Darlene Lea v. Cynthia Chapman, et al.
    No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Case management conference statements were not submitted.  All parties are admonished that they may be subject to sanctions if a case management conference statement is not filed at least fifteen days before the continued case management conference.  The parties shall meet and confer regarding an appropriate trial date and schedule.  Trial shall be set.

17. CU0001694 Tuyen Vuong vs. Cynthia Lynn Nulph
    No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendant shall file a responsive pleading, or pPlaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant prior to the continued case management conference.

Defendant has not filed a case management conference statement and is admonished that she may be subject to sanctions if a case management conference statement is not filed at least fifteen days before the continued case management conference.

18. CU0001696 George Watson vs. General Motors, LLC

No appearance is required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6, subsequent to defendant’s pending demurrer and motion to strike.

19. CU0001697    County of Nevada v. Wild Earth Property, LLC.

Appearances are required.  The federal court has remanded the case to this court.  The instant petition for an order to abate a substandard building and appointment of a receiver is set for hearing on February 7, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Dept. 6.

 

20. CU0001698 Grill, James Saunders v. Anderson, Eleonore et al
    Appearances are required.  The parties shall meet and confer regarding an appropriate trial date and schedule.  Trial shall be set.

21. CU0001700 City of Nevada City v. Satterfield

Appearances are required.  The city and Wells Fargo have apparently been discussing a proposed stipulation in connection with the latter’s secured interest and funding of remediation.  The parties shall meet and confer, update the court regarding the same and advise the court what further proceedings, if any, need be scheduled at this time.    

January 27, 2025 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings

1.         CL0002142                 Wheels Financial Group, LLC v. Maples

No appearance is required.  This limited jurisdiction matter is set for trial on April 28, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. 6.  The clerk shall file an appropriate notice of trial.  Plaintiff shall effectuate service on defendant and give notice of the trial as well. 

2.         CL0002164                 Wells Fargo Bank, Na v. Phillip Calloway

No appearance is required.  This limited jurisdiction matter is set for trial on May 5, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. 6.  The clerk shall file an appropriate notice of trial.  Plaintiff shall effectuate service on defendant and give notice of the trial as well. 

3.         Cl0002169                  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A v. Linda P Smith

No appearance is required.  Defendant has been served and has not filed a responsive pleading in this limited jurisdiction matter.  This matter is set for status regarding any potential default and default judgment (as deemed appropriate) on April 28, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. 6.

4.         Cl20-084730               Rocky Top Rentals LLC v. Levi Warner, et al. 

An appearance is required.  A June 5, 2024 order allowed service by publication upon defendant Spiller.  An October 31, 2024 proof of service by publication has been filed as to defendants Spiller and Warner.    Counsel shall clarify whether leave to serve defendant Warner by publication was ever sought as well as the status of service as to defendant Warner. 

5.         CU0000569                Susan Foote v. Jenny Renee Hunter Kaeding

No appearances are required.  A bankruptcy stay remains in effect. The case management conference is continued until April 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. 6.  The parties are reminded to file case management conference statements in advance thereof.

6.         CU0000943                Russell Roark v. Stephen Cardosi, et al.

Appearances are required.  Plaintiff has provided proof of service of the complaint on defendant Kristyn Cardosi.  Status regarding service upon defendant Stephen Cardosi is required.

7.         CU0001230                Jennifer Coalson-Perez, et al. v. Craig Hufnagel

No appearance is required.  A notice of settlement was filed December 6, 2024.  In light thereof, the court shall dismiss the complaint without prejudice absent any objection. 

8.         CU0001304                Sergey Degtyarev v. Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital

No appearance is required.  The court has been advised that plaintiff passed away in July 2024 by Zita Rutkauskaite, spouse of plaintiff.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. 6, so that decedent’s estate or successor in interest can substitute in as plaintiff if desired.   Any successor in interest should be aware that this case will potentially be dismissed if no steps are taken to diligently prosecute the same.  The clerk is directed to serve the court’s minute order on Zita Rutkauskaite, at P.O. Box 143, Washington, CA  95986, and file an appropriate proof of service.

9.         CU0001454                16th LB, Inc. v. Trusteel, LLC, et al.

No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until April 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. 6.  All parties have been served and answered the complaint.  The court has approved the parties’ stipulation for the filing of a cross-complaint by Trusteel, LLC against 16th LB, Inc.  The case is not at issue yet. 

10.       CU0001524                Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jerad G Hioki

An appearance is required. Plaintiff must show cause why it should not be sanctioned for failure to file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication, or a request for dismissal as previously ordered and why it should not be sanctioned for failing to file a case management conference statement for the December 16, 2024 case management conference.  No statement was filed for the current conference, either. 

11.       CU0001580                Adrienne Schram v. Bradley Shipley, et al.

Appearances are required.  The parties shall advise the court regarding the status of service as to: the complaint of Schram against Shipley and all persons; the cross-complaint of Shipley against Schram and Karwoski; and the cross-complaint of Karwoski against Shipley.  It appears the case is not at issue.

12.       CU0001661                Deborah Wagner v. George McKnight, et al.

Appearances are required.  It appears that all parties have been served.  A demurrer is pending as to defendants County and Walsh.  A bankruptcy stay appears to be in effect as to defendant California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., which has not filed a responsive pleading.  There does not appear to be a responsive pleading from defendant Wellpath Management, Inc. and McNight.  The parties shall confirm the above; plaintiff shall advise the court how it intends to proceed as to any defendants who have not responded.  The parties are reminded of their obligation to file case management conference statements. 

13.       CU0001673                Franklin Mint Federal Credit Union v. Samantha Shady

No appearance is required.  This limited jurisdiction matter is set for trial on April 28, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Dept. 6.  The clerk shall file an appropriate notice of trial.  Plaintiff shall effectuate service on defendant and give notice of the trial as well. 

14.       CU0001681                Randy Ryan Agno v. James L Gould, IV., et al.

No appearances are required.  The instant lawsuit relates to real property on Riverbend Lane, Emigant Gap, and should properly be heard by the Truckee Branch.  On motion of the court, the case is transferred to the Truckee Branch.  The case management conference is continued until February 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. A. 

15.       CU0001683                County of Nevada v. Michael James Taylor

No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until February 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. 6.  The court was unable to locate a proof of service as to cross-defendant County of Nevada and cross-defendant Elliot.  The cross-complaint does not otherwise appear to be at issue.   In the next case management conference statements, all parties shall confirm their understanding regarding service of process as to all parties in the complaint and cross-complaint.              

16.       CU0001697                In The Matter of County of Nevada          

Appearances are required regarding the county’s November 1, 2024 petition for an order to abate a substandard building and regarding the November 22, 2024 removal of this action to federal court.   

17.       CU0000795               Mark G. Jones vs. Barbara L. Reamer et al.

Appearances are required for this conference set at 10:00 a.m.  It appears that all claims as to all defendants have been resolved by demurrer.  The parties shall verify the same.  Defendants Sierra Asset Investments, LLC and SPFF, LP, shall confirm whether judgments of dismissal have been lodged. 

January 21, 2025 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings

1.  CL0001447     Vanessa Starkey vs. Jeremiah Storer

Appearances are required for trial setting in light of the Appellate Division’s order denying defendant’s petition for writ of mandate and remanding the case back to this court to set a date and time for trial at the soonest practical time.

2.  CU0001190    Alice Branton, et al. vs. Zarlasht Fakiri, D.O., et al.

Appearances are required.  Trial is hereby set as follows:

            10-12 day bench trial (no jury fees have been posted). 

            Trial:  April 7, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

            PTC:  March 27, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

            MSC:  March 9, 2026, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

3.  CU0001307   Rick Ewald vs. Gary Liardon, et al.

Appearance is required.  The court is in receipt of the 9 January 2025 declaration from John Vodonick in response to the order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to appear at the 2 December 2024 case management conference.  The court appreciates the status update; however, the declaration does not sufficiently show cause why counsel did not appear on the December date. 

4.  CU0001664    Carla Markeeta Jefferson vs. Heating-Cooling Service Co., et al.

No appearance is required.  On its own motion, the court sets a further case management conference on March 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or request for dismissal not later than one week before the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.

5.  CU22-086160 Kevin Malone vs. William Ferreira

No appearances are required.  No case management conference statements were submitted as required.  On its own motion, the court sets a further case management conference on March 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The parties must file case management conference statements prior thereto as required by the Local Rules. 

March 06, 2025 Department 3 Guardianship Annual Review Tentative Ruling

---

Notice:

These are the Court’s tentative rulings.  Attorneys and parties are directed to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing. These tentative rulings will be adopted by the Court, unless the guardian and / or parent personally appears at the hearing and objects to the tentative ruling. The person requesting that appearance must notify the other party / parties AND the court before 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing date. 

Email OA@nccourt.net  with a copy to the other party / parties to give this notice.   You may appear by video by arranging a remote appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net.  The email subject line needs to contain Zoom Request:  Hearing date, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 for Case #.   Fill in the correct date and case number, of course. 

If you need any help with the information in the tentative ruling, you can: 

• Find Your Court Forms - Guardianship  for the forms stated in the tentative ruling.  OR
• Submit a Self-Help request  OR
• Send email to selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net  OR
• Come to the Court’s Self-Help Center Monday through Friday for forms and information about the next steps. OR
• Consult a private attorney.

03/06/2025 at 9:00 a.m.

Guardianship Calendar Tentative Rulings Department 3

1. Case No.  P13-15427  In the Matter of: Jordan L.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interests of the minor. The Court has reviewed the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 02/04/2025.  Your appearance on Thursday, 03/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 03/05/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.

2. Case No.  P13-15510  In the Matter of: James O.

The Court has not received the GC-251 Annual Confidential Status Report from the Guardians.  The matter is set for hearing on Thursday, 03/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California. Personal appearance is required.

If you need forms or assistance with the orders, you may contact the attorney of your choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.

3. Case No.  P13-15552  In the Matter of: Kiana G.

The Court has reviewed the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 01/21/2025 and has questions.   Personal appearance on Thursday, 03/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is required. 

If you need forms or assistance with the orders, you may contact the attorney of your choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.

4. Case No.  P16-16071  In the Matter of: Julia J.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interests of the minor. The Court has reviewed the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 12/10/2024.  Your appearance on Thursday, 03/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 03/05/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.

5. Case No.  P16-16072  In the Matter of: Jemma J.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interests of the minor. The Court has reviewed the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 12/10/2024.  Your appearance on Thursday, 03/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 03/05/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.

6. Case No.  P17-16215  In the Matter of: Brayleigh J.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interests of the minor. The Court has reviewed the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 01/02/2025.  Your appearance on Thursday, 03/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 03/05/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.

Friday, March , 7  2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference 

Friday, February, 7  2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference 

Friday, January 3, 2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference 

Friday, December 6, 2024 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference

Friday, November 1,2024 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference

Friday, October 4, 2024 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference 

Family Law Status Conference standard order terms.

The following terms apply to all of the below cases and are incorporated by reference into the tentative decision for each case.   Review them carefully.

1. These are the Court’s tentative rulings.  In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309, Ext. 4 no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing.  If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court. 

2. If neither party gives that notice, your appearance at the status conference. is not necessary UNLESS the tentative decision in your case requires that appearance.  
3. No Judgment has been entered in this case yet.  No Judgment or other orders will be entered automatically. Moving forward with this case will require action from at least one party.
4. If you need forms or assistance with the orders in item 2, you may contact the attorney of your choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
5. If both parties want to opt out of further status conference, each must notify the Clerk at nccounter@nccourt.net, with a copy to the other party. Unless both parties opt out at least three (3) court days before the status conference date, appearance at the next status conference is required. 
6. If both parties opt out of the status conference process, the orders to serve and file the above documents will be vacated at the time that this opt out is effective.  These documents will still be required before the case can proceed further. The Court can place the case back on the Status Conference calendar and reinstate a filing deadline for these documents on request of either party or by the Court giving notice of a new Status Conference date.
7. Submission of a settlement agreement and Judgment documents will vacate the Status Conference only after the Judge has approved the Judgment.   

______________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000830              

Petitioner:  Adams, Richard  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Adams, Tanya   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance or further status conference is contemplated by the Court at this time. 
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000903              

Petitioner:  Schwartz, Patrick

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Schwartz, Lacey B.                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   No continuance or further status conference is contemplated by the Court at this time. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL00001398            

Petitioner:  Tipton, Brittany  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Cook, Jared       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance or further status conference is contemplated by the Court at this time.   
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001416              

Petitioner:  Mantooth, Colleen                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Mantooth, Steve                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001723              

Petitioner:  Hood, Megan      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Hood, Brian      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001898              

Petitioner:  Mallo, Mona-Lisa

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Mallo, Mark     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001915              

Petitioner:  Griffiths, Melinda Sue                                         

Attorney: Anderson, James

Respondent: Fritz, Daryl Wayne                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001960              

Petitioner:  Keyser, Kevin      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Keyser, Rebekah                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

_________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001961              

Petitioner:  Vargas. Jeffrey    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Vargas, Molly   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001981              

Petitioner:  Farrell, Marcia Webster                                     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Farrell, Douglas Ted                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001982              

Petitioner:  Brautigam, Nga  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Brautigam, Jared                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001995              

Petitioner:  Colbert, Danyel   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Bartoli, Vincent

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-270 Response to Petition for Custody and Support of Minor Children OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002005              

Petitioner:  Rodriguez, Hope 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Rodriguez, David                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002018              

Petitioner:  Samson, Allison Rivers                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Samson, David Scott                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002029              

Petitioner:  Sullivan, Shelly    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Morrow, Nico   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.  .  
   2. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons .  FL-115 is not complete.  The address of service information is missing.  If the original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served.  When the Court has the correct Proof of Service, the Court requires one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response  and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response.  Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR 
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002397              

Petitioner:  Gerhart, Audrey  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Gerhart, Keith   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002417              

Petitioner:  Peterson, Ingrid  

Attorney: Christie, Nancy

Respondent: Carter, Tom      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   3. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   4. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002433              

Petitioner:  Rocha, Ashley Anne                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Rocha. Lionel Cardoza II                                   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002475              

Petitioner:  LaGrou, Melanie 

Attorney: Anderson, Sara (Ltd scope)  

Respondent: Gardner, Brian 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons   only if parties want termination of marital status before 03/19/2025. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002498              

Petitioner:  Guiterrez, Samantha                                          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Guiterrez, Israel

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. Since Judgment was declined because there were no child support forms and calculation attached when the judgment did not actually ask for child support at this time, Petitioner needs to file an explanation and request re-submission.   For forms or assistance with that, Petitioner may contact the attorney of her choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002500              

Petitioner:  Hostetter, Raymond Wayne                               

Attorney: Klein, w. Gregory

Respondent: Hostetter, Shana Lee Johnson                          

Attorney: Anderson, James

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002504              

Petitioner:  Dixon, Jerry         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Dixon, Kaye      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002516              

Petitioner:  Foster, Mark       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Foster, Heather

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002517              

Petitioner:  Greene, Hannah Breeze                                     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Greene, Adam Abraham                                  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002518              

Petitioner:  Thibodeaux, Jennifer                                          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Thibodeaux, John                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002533              

Petitioner:  Baker, Typer Robert                                            

Attorney: Bell, Joseph

Respondent: Baker, Sherron Angell                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002535              

Petitioner:  Kroner, Elisha     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kroner, Adam   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002554              

Petitioner:  Baker, Megan Rebecca                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Baker, Christian Lee                                         

Attorney: Granger, Jennifer

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002565              

Petitioner:  Weisman, Zachary D.                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Don, Evangelina

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002579              

Petitioner:  Foster, Jeff          

Attorney: Strasser, Laura (ltd scope) Self-Represented

Respondent: Johnson, Ellen  

Attorney: Gettys, Canence (Ltd scope) Self-Represented

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001315              

Petitioner:  Piaget, Isis           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Roldan, Pedro Merida                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001324              

Petitioner:  Gardner, Michael A.                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Lucero, Sara J.  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001765              

Petitioner:  Kenyon, Alison    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kenyon, Eric     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons .  FL-115 is not complete.  The date and time of service are missing.  If original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served.  Once correct Proof of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response  and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response.  Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR 
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001804              

Petitioner:  Langlois, Mary Lou                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Langlois, David Bruce                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001820              

Petitioner:  Flecksteiner, Annessa                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Flecksteiner, Jeffrey                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:.  
   1. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons .  FL-115 is not complete.  The address information is missing.  If original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served.  Once date of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response  OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response.  Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR 
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001826              

Petitioner:  LeVeaux, Devon  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Lopez LeVeaux, Antonio                                   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001874              

Petitioner:  Holstrom, Richard III                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Holstrom, Ashley                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001905              

Petitioner:  Alvarado, Jesseca R.                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Alvarado, Brian M.                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002227              

Petitioner:  Wright, Dean Norman                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Wright, Carolyn Jill Crist                                  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002339              

Petitioner:  Greeley, India     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Greeley, Erik     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002349              

Petitioner:  Gordon, Gwen    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Keyser, Herbert Carter                                     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002351              

Petitioner:  Gilchrist, Leanne 

Attorney: Carter, Gregory

Respondent: Gilchrist, Timothy                                             

Attorney: Bell, Joseph

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court.
2.  The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002356              

Petitioner:  Allen, Adriana     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Allen, Dustin     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002360              

Petitioner:  Phillips, Morgan 

Attorney: Foley, Ryan

Respondent: Phillips, Chandler                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002362              

Petitioner:  Smith, Andrea     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Smith, Jonathan Jeffrey-Lee                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002367              

Petitioner:  DeMario, Christopher                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: DeMario, Jamie

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002373              

Petitioner:  Morales, Skye     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Morales, Jackie

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002378              

Petitioner:  Dionne, Terii       

Attorney: Christie, Nancy

Respondent: Van Der Zalm, Erikl                                          

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002384              

Petitioner:  Foster, Scott Foster                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Foster, Andrea 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002391              

Petitioner:  Woodruff, Joseph

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: DeGennaro, Brandy                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002394              

Petitioner:  Wells, Lisa           

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Wells, Ryan       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002396              

Petitioner:  Thibodeau, Jaime

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Lucero, Angel   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002401              

Petitioner:  Uribe, Cesar J.     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kelly, Nicole C.  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons .  If original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served.  Once date of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response  OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response.  Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR 
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served and request to set prove-up hearing.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002404              

Petitioner:  Kiser, Lissa          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kiser, Richard Jr.                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002408              

Petitioner:  McLees, Ryan      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: McLees, Giedre

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002418              

Petitioner:  Green Wells, Megan Frances                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Wells, Michael Ryan                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002423              

Petitioner:  Garcia, Ruth Debora                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Garcia, John      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner AND Request to set prove-up hearing for nullity facts.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002425              

Petitioner:  Dreher, Elizabeth

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Dreher, Douglas Joseph                                    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002429              

Petitioner:  Foster, Kathy Ellen                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Johnson, Samuel Elan                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002437              

Petitioner:  Ingle, Robert       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Ingle, Melyssa  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002450              

Petitioner:  Nunnink, Danny  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nunnink, Kyle   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002472              

Petitioner:  Mason, Kasi        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Mason, Timothy                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

*****

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001023              

Petitioner:  Davis, Jerrett       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Davis, Angel      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001159              

Petitioner:  Hojnacki, Jennifer

Attorney: Medina, Angelina

Respondent: Taapa, Jonathon                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.  If Judgment is entered before the status conference, no appearance is required. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL00001176            

Petitioner:  Adachi, Craig      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Adachi, Susan   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001193              

Petitioner:  Belendez, Rachel

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Belendez, Robert                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001197              

Petitioner:  Trethewey, Mary E.                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Trethewey, Paul M.                                          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001203              

Petitioner:  Selletti, Stephanie                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Selletti, Justin   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001683              

Petitioner:  Skellenger, Jason

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Skellener, Katherine                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001710              

Petitioner:  Goodyear, Amelia                                              

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Hippert, Joseph

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001712              

Petitioner:  Kanani, Babak     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kanani, Miriam

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001763              

Petitioner:  Menezes, Rebecca                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Menezes, Freddie                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001777              

Petitioner:  Brace, George     

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

Respondent: Brace, Darci     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002282              

Petitioner:  Peternell, Raymond                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Peternell, Megan                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002297              

Petitioner:  Nicholson, Cynthia Louise                                  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nicholson, Justin Levi                                       

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002312              

Petitioner:  Turek, Ricki Roberts                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Turek, Daniel    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   3. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   4. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002314              

Petitioner:  Coulter, Crystal S.                                               

Attorney: Granger, Jennifer

Respondent: Coulter, Chris G.                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002324              

Petitioner:  Entler, Ruby        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Shaw, Luke       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002326              

Petitioner:  Dugan, Kenneth  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Dugan, Tina Thayer C.                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. Summons was not filed with the Petition.  Court intends to issue an OSC to dismiss the case.  Petitioner can cure this by filing  Summons on or before December 31, 2024. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002333              

Petitioner:  Herzig, James      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Brown, Jessica  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002366              

Petitioner:  Click, Kevin          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Richardson, Hanamae                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002379              

Petitioner:  Montgomery, Linda                                            

Attorney: Thompson, Sara

Respondent: Montgomery, Mark                                         

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION  

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001040              

Petitioner:  Williams, Kendall

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Williams, RIcky 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure . 
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001071              

Petitioner:  VanValkenberg. Angela                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Clark, Gavin      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .    
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001076              

Petitioner:  Duarte, Miriah    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nicholson, Clint

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001103              

Petitioner:  Ly, Sarah             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Ly, Cun              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001105              

Petitioner:  Lerche, Ella         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Ramsay, Mitchell                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   The Status Conference is dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001109              

Petitioner:  Dunmire, Judy     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Dunmire, David

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
   4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001140              

Petitioner:  Whitley, Sierra    

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

Respondent: Whitley, Thomas                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

_________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001313              

Petitioner:  Carver, Christopher                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Carver, Renee  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
      1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.  
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001619              

Petitioner:  Knox, Keenen      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Zolling, Kimberly                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-270 Response to Petition for Custody and Support of Minor Children OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001623              

Petitioner:  Kendrick, Scott    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kendrick, Karen

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001626              

Petitioner:  Gutierrez Agoado, Christine                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Gutierrez Agoado, Richard                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. There are issues with service of process before the case can move forward.
3. If you need forms or assistance with the orders, you may contact the attorney of your choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001629              

Petitioner:  Driggs, Kristin L.  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Driggs, Jeffrey P.                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.  
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001644              

Petitioner:  Peeler, Jennifer Jasmine                                     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Peeler, Jason Daniel                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001651              

Petitioner:  Ford, Tara           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Tyner, Cath       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001673              

Petitioner:  Dana, Jayleen      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Dana, Justin      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001692              

Petitioner:  Tostenson, Briannahlyn                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Tostenson, Michael                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001702              

Petitioner:  Avery, Stephanie 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Avery, Jerry      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002166              

Petitioner:  Nesbit, MIchele  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nesbit, Evan Ryan                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002167              

Petitioner:  Grose, May         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Gunderson, David Byron                                  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002173              

Petitioner:  Nigro, Emily        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nigro, Vincent  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002176              

Petitioner:  Hinrichs, Sandra  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Salmonson, Karl

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002178              

Petitioner:  Cyrus, Sonja        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Cyrus, Kalvin     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002190              

Petitioner:  Plisik, Michael J.  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Plisik, Kristina M.                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002199              

Petitioner:  Lachman, Lori     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: McAlinn, Shawn

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002204              

Petitioner:  DeLaughter, Breannah                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: DeLaughter, Cory                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002205              

Petitioner:  Martinez, Sophie 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Martinez, Anthony James                                

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of th tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002216              

Petitioner:  Kemmer, Suzanne                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Tackaberry, Michael                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002217              

Petitioner:  Kenney, Amanda

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kenney, Jeffrey

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002219              

Petitioner:  Castro, Kayla       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Castro, Louis     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.     
   2. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons .  FL-115 is not complete.  The address / date / time / server information is missing.  If original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served.  Once date of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response  and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response.  Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR 
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002220              

Petitioner:  Taylor-Hren, Mewgan                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Elliott, Jeremiah

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002221              

Petitioner:  Cregar, Christina

Attorney: Ewing, Janet

Respondent: Groom, Ray      

Attorney: Thompson, Sara

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002228              

Petitioner:  Torres, Pablo       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Yarala, Stephanie                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002235              

Petitioner:  Thompson, Robert Wesley                                 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Alee, Rhonda Lee                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. The parties asked for inconsistent underlying relief which cannot be resolved at a Status Conference.
3. If you need forms or assistance with the procedure, you may contact the attorney of your choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002237              

Petitioner:  Pasciutti, James Danile                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Pasciutti, Donette Rose                                    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002258              

Petitioner:  Thompson, Aaron                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Cohen, Liz         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002272              

Petitioner:  Marks, Cory Thomas                                           

Attorney: Bell, Joseph

Respondent: Marks, Isadora Pacheco                                   

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 

2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002278              

Petitioner:  Lund, Ryan          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Hunt, Kylie        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.  
   2. FL-105 GC-120(A) Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) from Respondent
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002285              

Petitioner:  Peebles, Travis    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Peebles, Samantha                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002290              

Petitioner:  Amezcus, Corinne                                               

Attorney: Thompson, Sara

Respondent: Amezcus, Kenneth                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

Friday, 11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 Family Law Status Conference calendar

If you need any help with the next step in your case, you can: 

• Find Your Court Forms - Divorce  for the forms stated in the tentative ruling.  OR
• Submit a Self-Help request  OR
• Send email to selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net  OR
• Come to the Court’s Self-Help Center Monday through Friday for forms and information about the next steps.  Open hours are on the Court web site.  The Self-Help Center can help you find/complete the forms to move your case to the next step.  OR
• Consult a private attorney.

Family Law Status Conference standard order terms. 

The following terms apply to all of the below cases and are incorporated by reference into the tentative decision for each case.   Review them carefully.  

1. If either party wishes to object to the tentative decision and to appear in Court on the date stated above, that party must notify the other party and also notify the Court Clerk by telephone to 530-362-4309 Ext. 4 or by email to nccounter@nccourt.net no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the current Status Conference date.  If neither party gives this notice, the tentative decision will be adopted as the order of the Court.  

2. If neither party gives that notice, your appearance on the current Status Conference date at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary UNLESS the order in your case requires that appearance.    

3. No Judgment has been entered in this case yet.  No Judgment or other orders will be entered automatically. Moving forward with this case will require action from at least one party.  

4. If you need forms or assistance with the orders in item 2, you may contact the attorney of your choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.  

5. If both parties want to opt out of further status conference, each must notify the Clerk at nccounter@nccourt.net, with a copy to the other party. Unless both parties opt out at least three (3) court days before the status conference date, appearance at the next status conference is required.   

6. If both parties opt out of the status conference process, the orders to serve and file the above documents will be vacated at the time that this opt out is effective.  These documents will still be required before the case can proceed further. The Court can place the case back on the Status Conference calendar and reinstate a filing deadline for these documents on request of either party or by the Court giving notice of a new Status Conference date. 

7. Submission of a settlement agreement and Judgment documents will vacate the Status Conference only after the Judge has approved the Judgment.     

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000993              

Petitioner:  Brown, Courtney 

Attorney: Besselman, Nina

Respondent: Brown, David    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000994              

Petitioner:  Hines, Gwendelyn                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Hines, Philip     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001032              

Petitioner:  Parmenter, Tina  

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

Respondent: Parmenter, Christopher                                   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Both parties submitted FL-20 questionnaires stating that the case is not ready for supervised settlement conference at this time.  The case is dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001058              

Petitioner:  Stockdale. Gabriella                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Stockdale, Jonathan Ross                                 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001092              

Petitioner:  Aplington, George                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Aplington, Dana

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001545              

Petitioner:  Nielson, Kyla       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Corbett, Wade  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the delivery method of the documents.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   3. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   4. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001570              

Petitioner:  Martisko, Mollie 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Martisko, Chase

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001583              

Petitioner:  Nyman, Marianne                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nyman, Daniel 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001586              

Petitioner:  Setzer, Joe C.      

Attorney: John Downing

Respondent: Setzer, Darline L.                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001592              

Petitioner:  Zahediahrami, Seyed Habibollah                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Moseley, Haley Elizabeth                                 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001600              

Petitioner:  Talley, Krystal     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Carson, Alexander                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001609              

Petitioner:  Cancino, Jose Luis                                               

Attorney: Granger, Jennifer

Respondent: Cancino, Diane 

Attorney: Lindsay, Kathy

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001611              

Petitioner:  Deschaine, Shauneen                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Deschaine, Tyler                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001616              

Petitioner:  Nelson, Geoffrey

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nelson, Allison 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001618              

Petitioner:  Prieto, Savanna   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Prieto, Antonio 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-105 GC-120(A) Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) from eacb party.
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the delivery method of the documents. 
   3. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the delivery method of the documents.
   4. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   5. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   6. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

_________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001670              

Petitioner:  Hanson, Lora      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Hanson, Dustin 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.    Publication order was granted, but proof of service by publication has not been filed.
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002057              

Petitioner:  Sawi, Kayla          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Sawi, Jared       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002097              

Petitioner:  Berger, Paul S.    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Hayes, Susan E.

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002100              

Petitioner:  Blanchard, Damayanti                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Blanchard, Dusty                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002110              

Petitioner:  Strouss, Nicole    

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

Respondent: Strouss, Ian       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  of original Summons and Petition. Page 2 of Amended Petition. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002113              

Petitioner:  Ingram, Rebecca Jane                                         

Attorney: Miller, Chandra

Respondent: Ingram, David Sean                                          

Attorney: Moore, James

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court.  The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002116              

Petitioner:  Perrine, Kellie     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Perrine, II, Lyndon                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002117              

Petitioner:  Halberg, Helen    

Attorney:   Self-Represented

Respondent: Halberg, Austin 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002137              

Petitioner:  Henson, Joseph Scott                                          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Henson, Eva Marie                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002140              

Petitioner:  Frye, Jeana C.      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Frye, Dwaine    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

11/01/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002152              

Petitioner:  Peters, Michelle D.                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Peters. Justin J.

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/02/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/28/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declara     tion of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 05/02/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000881              

Petitioner:  Locatelli, Sarah   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Locatelli, Daniel

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000882              

Petitioner:  Wolfe, Caitlin      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Seeba, Nicholas

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000914              

Petitioner:  Bailey, Terrance 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Westenberger, Kelly                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000930              

Petitioner:  Neves, Brian Keith Jr.                                          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: MaKenzie, Jo Rose                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000931              

Petitioner:  Leicester, Kimberly                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Hakanson, Jimmy                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000935              

Petitioner:  Nuzzo, Brandon  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Shipherd, Chelsey                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  Court scanned copy is not legible.    
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service is not legible. When that has been corrected, and it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000943              

Petitioner:  Nelson, Robert    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Brown, Denise Yvette                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001395              

Petitioner:  Restad, Barbara  

Attorney: Montero, John V.

Respondent: Restad, Lawrence                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001409              

Petitioner:  Stevenson, Della Rose                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Stevenson, Shadrach Murray                          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that Judgment documents have been submitted for review.
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001441              

Petitioner:  Menig, Faith        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Menig, Ryan     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001458              

Petitioner:  Dalmau, Brandee

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Martinelli, David                                              

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.

3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001467              

Petitioner:  Andrews, Jodi     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Walsh, Robert  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  for original and amended Summons and Petition  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.  .  
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FLFL0001501           

Petitioner:  Witt, Carina        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Carl, Robert III  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001502              

Petitioner:  Garcia, Thomas Ronald                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Garcia, Candice S.                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001508              

Petitioner:  Toohey, Candice 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Toohey, Brian   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  for original and amended Summons and Petition  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001776              

Petitioner:  Clanton, Erinlee  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Clanton, Christopher                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

5. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.
6. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
7. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
8. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001992              

Petitioner:  Skowyra, Allyssa Fennelly                                   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Skowyra, Daniel Joseph                                    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.     
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002007              

Petitioner:  Peterson, Julia Anne                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Miller, Matthew Scott                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002023              

Petitioner:  Leonard, Tamera Ann                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Leonard, Michael Ryan                                    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002045              

Petitioner:  Nix, Valerie         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nix, Thomas J.  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. The Status Conference is vacated because the case is already scheduled for case management conference and trial setting in Dept 5.

2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002050              

Petitioner:  Martinelli, Christopher Edmund                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Martinelli, Jennifer Lisa                                   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002051              

Petitioner:  Cooper, Theresa 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Cooper, Nicholas                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR showing document which was published.  Current publication proof of service is miss8ing pag4e 2 of 2. Also, Petition was amended, and there is no summons on amended petition.
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner, if the case proceeds as a Dissolution action. Not applicable if it proceeds as a Nullity.
   3. Correct Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002061              

Petitioner:  Snyder, Tetiana  

Attorney: Fatula, Stephen

Respondent: Snyder, Timothy                                               

Attorney: Patrick, Sean

1. The Status Conference is vacated because the case is already scheduled for case management conference and trial setting in Dept 5.
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002063              

Petitioner:  Johnson, Nathan 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Johnson, Heather                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.     
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

10/04/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002095              

Petitioner:  Maher, Thomas L.                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Maher, Petra S.

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 04/04/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 04/01/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 04/04/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________