Tentative Rulings

Nevada City

Click on any of the links below to view the current tentative rulings in that category, or call (530) 362-4309.

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 nccounter@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.

November 1, 2024 Dept. 6 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. PR0000440 In the Matter of Katherine Rupert Kinaman

Petitioner’s September 30, 2024 motion to continue trial is STRICKEN.

Non-attorneys may not practice law for others without being active members of the bar. See Drake v. Superior Court (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830. A power of attorney does not grant a non-attorney the right to bring or pursue a lawsuit on behalf of the principal. See In re Marriage of Caballero, 27 Cal. App. 4th 1139, 1151 (1994) (“Despite broad statutory language of the power of attorney with respect to claims and litigation, the attorney in fact may not act as an attorney at law on behalf of his principal, even though the principal could appear in propria persona.”); Drake, 21 Cal.App.4th at 1831 (“Long before passage of the Power of Attorney Act, the law distinguished between an attorney in fact and an attorney at law and emphasized that a power of attorney is not a vehicle which authorizes an attorney in fact to act as an attorney at law.”).

Petitioner’s motion to continue trial was filed by an individual who is not licensed to practice law in California. Consequently, the motion is stricken. Trial remains scheduled for November 5, 2024.

2. SC0000372 Thomas Deal v. Fred Gerkensmeyer

This ruling is issued by Judge James LaPorte.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 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.”

Petitioner’s motion fails for the following reasons:

The original motion was not served on respondent, and the amended motion was filed and served more than ten days after notice of entry of the order;

The original and amended motion make no showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law. First, the case cited by petitioner, Gruzen v. Henry (1978) 84 Cal App 3d 515, is not new law; it was published in 1978. Second, the motion does not show new or different facts for the court to consider.

Specifically, at the trial, petitioner made the argument presented in the Gruzen case, that is, that respondent was not entitled to back rent because he had not taken out permits to make it a legal dwelling. Respondent testified on the issue, albeit vaguely, but petitioner did not produce readily available governmental records regarding the dispute nor an agency statement that the permit was never issued.

Even if petitioner included in his motion newly discovered evidence of permits or lack thereof, that would not warrant granting his motion for reconsideration because there is no reason why he did not present that evidence at the trial. “To move for new trial or reconsideration of a prior court order on the basis of “new or different facts” or newly discovered evidence, the moving party must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time. Shiffer v. CBS Corp. (2015) 240 Cal. App. 4^th 246, modified on denial of rehearing.

3. CU0001511 Cassandra Triplett vs. Sammie's Friends Animal Shelter, et al.

The demurrer of defendant Julie Carrol is overruled. The demurrer of defendant Sammie's Friends is overruled. Defendants shall file an answer within ten days of this order.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request the court to take judicial notice of Sammie’s Friends’ filings with the Secretary of State that it is a 503(c) non-profit corporation, including its Articles of Incorporation, Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation, Statement of Information CA Non-Profit Corporation. The request is GRANTED.

The filings, specifically, the facts stated in the Articles of Incorporation, state facts that are “not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” Evid. Code §452(h).

Meet and Confer Requirements

Defendants filed a declaration outlining the parties’ meet and confer efforts. This declaration complies with the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41.

Reply Brief

The court, in the exercise of its discretion, has considered the tardy reply submitted by plaintiffs.

Legal Standard

“A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034. “It has been consistently held that “a plaintiff is required only to set forth the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn. Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099, cited with approval by Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.

A demurrer lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.30, 430.70. Thus, the only issue addressed by a demurrer is “whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; accord McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 72, 79.

Demurrer by Defendant Julie Carrol

Defendant Julie Carrol argues that the complaint fails to state any cause of action against her because she was a volunteer of a non-profit organization at the time of the incident; as such, she is protected from liability by the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. The court is not persuaded.

The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, codified in 42 United States Code sections 14501-14505, shields individuals who volunteer with 501(c)(3) non-profits under the following conditions:

The volunteer was acting within the scope of their responsibilities;
If appropriate or required, the volunteer possessed any required license or certification;
The harm did not result from willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a conscious flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the individual harmed; and
The harm was not caused by the volunteer operating a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle that must either be insured or operated with a license under state law.

42 U.S.C.A. § 14503 (a).

At the time of the incident, per the complaint, defendant Carroll was acting as a volunteer with defendant Sammie’s Friends, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. See Complaint, 2:14, Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. A. Moreover, she apparently was acting within the scope of her responsibilities. See complaint at 3:9-14. In addition, the complaint does not allege that plaintiff was injured as the result of defendant’s willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a conscious flagrant indifference to the rights/safety of the individual harmed; it alleges that plaintiff was injured as a result of negligence. See id. at 4:27-5:6.

That said, the complaint is silent as to whether the volunteer had any required license or certification or whether the same was appropriate or required. There also are no judicially noticed facts regarding the same.

Thus, as it stands, there is no defect based on the complaint as pled or judicially noticed facts with respect to the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action. The demurrer by defendant Carrol is overruled.

Demurrer by Sammie’s Friends

Primary Assumption of the Risk

Defendant Sammie’s Friends argues that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, as embodied in the veterinarian's rule and firefighter’s rule, bars all causes of action brought by plaintiff because at the time of the incident, she was acting in her capacity as an animal control officer. Plaintiff questions whether the doctrine of assumption of the risk is a defense to any claim other than the strict liability claim. Plaintiff also contends that her claims are not by barred by assumption of the risk because she was not acting in her animal control officer capacity with respect to the dog. The court need not reach plaintiff’s first argument and agrees with plaintiff’s latter argument.

The court assumes, without deciding, that assumption of the risk applies to all claims at issue. See, e.g., Gregory v. Cott (2014) 59 Cal.4th 996, 1001, 1012 (“Primary assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery. It applies when, as a matter of law, the defendant owes no duty to guard against a particular risk of harm. … Absence of duty bars recovery for intentional torts as well as for negligence.”); Amezcua v. Los Angeles Harley-Davidson, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 217, 228 (“ ‘assumption of risk’ can be a complete defense to claim of negligence.”)

As for the merits of the asserted defense, the common thread running through the cases related to the firefighter’s and veterinarian’s rule is that the injury occurred while the plaintiff was in the course of “remedying a dangerous situation” and was injured as the result of negligence that was “the cause of his or her employment.” Gregory v. Cott (2014) 59 Cal.4th 996, 1002. Notes the Supreme Court, “[B]ecause the risk of injury from those causes is inherent in the occupations of firefighters and veterinarians, it is settled that no duty is owed to protect them from the very dangers they are hired to confront.” Id. at 1007.

Thus, in Priebe v. Nelson (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1112, cited by both parties, a kennel worker was bitten by a dog while kenneled and under her care. The court ruled that the owner of the dog had no duty to protect plaintiff from the risk of injury that she was employed to confront, that is, the “risk [of] being bitten by dogs under their care in the unfamiliar surroundings of a boarding kennel.” Id. at 1125.

Similarly, in Nelson v. Hall (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 709, also cited by both parties, a veterinary assistant was bitten while assisting in the treatment of a dog that suddenly turned around and bit her. “A veterinarian or a veterinary assistant who accepts employment for the medical treatment of a dog, aware of the risk that any dog, regardless of its previous nature, might bite while being treated, has assumed this risk as part of his or her occupation.” Id. at 715.

In the case at bar, plaintiff was an animal control officer. She was also on defendant’s premises while in the scope of her employment as an animal control officer. However, unlike the caretaker in Gregory, the kennel worker in Priebe, or the veterinary assistant in Nelson, plaintiff was not on defendant’s premises for any reason related to the dog, which was not under her custody or control when it bit her. Rather, she was at the site to drop off two goats. As such, the primary assumption of risk doctrine does not bar any of the causes of action of her complaint.

Common Law Strict Liability

Defendant also argues that the third cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for common law strict liability. The court does not agree.

“It is not the law that a vicious propensity means only the type of malignancy exhibited by a biting dog, that is, a propensity to attack human beings. Any propensity on the part of a domestic animal, which is likely to cause injury to human beings under the circumstances in which the party controlling the animal places him, is a dangerous or vicious propensity within the meaning of the law.” Talizin v. Oak Creek Riding Club (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 429, 435. The facts alleged in plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently demonstrate defendant’s knowledge of Lenny’s dangerous or vicious propensities. See Complaint ¶¶ 19-22.

4. CU20-084791 Community Environmental Advocates, et al., vs. City of Grass Valley

The return to the peremptory writ of mandate is ACCEPTED, and the motion to discharge the peremptory writ of mandate is GRANTED.

The scope of a trial court’s review of a return to the writ is to determine whether “there [has] been adequate compliance with the previously issued writ.” National Parks and Conservation Assn. v. County of Riverside (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1352. In evaluating compliance, the court will review “de novo” whether the party has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act’s procedures, but afford substantial deference to the party’s substantive factual conclusions. POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 52, 62-63.

Respondent’s motion demonstrates, in detail, that it has complied with the terms of the writ related to the Dorsey Marketplace Project, including opening the issues to public comment on the supplement to the final environmental impact report and responding to the concerns raised by petitioners. Petitioners do not oppose this motion.

The court finds that the city has complied with the terms of the peremptory writ of mandate. Accordingly, the writ is discharged.

5. CU0000164 In Re Nancy Footlik

Plaintiff's September 19, 2024 motion against Robinson and Fulton to produce records in compliance with deposition subpoena is GRANTED; plaintiff's request for sanctions is GRANTED.

Plaintiff confirms receipt of the trust document. Defendant shall produce without objection all documents identifying assets of the trust no later than November 8, 2024, noon. These documents are relevant to the instant dispute and timely objections to the request were not made.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 authorizes the court to impose monetary sanctions against a party, person, or attorney who misuses the discovery process, which includes the following:

(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.

***

(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.

There is no dispute that Robinson and Miller failed to respond to a duly served deposition subpoena. The firm did not comply, and it did not object or file a motion to quash. Rather, it waited almost three months to produce only some of the requested documents, further evidencing that it had no substantial justification for not responding to an authorized method of discovery and no substantial justification for opposing this motion.

Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions against Robinson and Fulton is GRANTED. Sanctions in the amount of $1,750.00 shall be paid no later than November 8, 2024, noon.

October 25, 2024 Dept. 6 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. CL0002037 Joseph Pryor vs. Sergio Aguilar, Jr.

All parties are ordered to appear for argument.

2. CU0000108 JM Streamline Inc., DBA Streamline Construction vs. Tahoe Forest Hospital District, et al

On the court’s own motion, the motion for leave to file cross-complaint filed by defendant Tim Cates is continued to November 15, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6.

On the court’s own motion, the motion for leave to file cross-complaint filed by defendants Tahoe Forest Hospital District, Dylan Crosby, and Cameron Delano is also continued to November 15, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6.

3. CU0000128 Douglas J. Schultz vs. Marianne L. Stevenson, et al.

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition

No appearance is required. Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. The motion for sanctions is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.210 allows a party to notice another party’s deposition. If the party fails to comply with a proper deposition notice, Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 allows the noticing party to seek to compel that party’s deposition.

The parties dispute numerous issues. What is not disputed is defendant’s right to take plaintiff’s deposition. The third amended deposition is a proper deposition notice, served after plaintiff confirmed his availability. Plaintiff did not appear for that deposition.

Defendant’s request for an order compelling plaintiff’s deposition within 45 days of entry of order is appropriate. The parties are ordered to meet and confer, and defendant’s attorney is to file a declaration by October 31, 2024 stating the agreed-upon date for plaintiff’s deposition. That date will be deemed the court-ordered deposition date for purposes of any future motions to compel, should plaintiff not appear on the ordered date.

The court finds that there was substantial justification for defendant to file the instant motion and substantial justification for plaintiff to oppose it. Sanctions are denied.

The court has not considered plaintiff’s request for judicial notice or plaintiff’s declaration filed after defendant’s reply brief. Any objections thereto are denied as moot.

Motion for Interlocutory Judgment

On the court’s own motion, the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory judgment is continued to January 10, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Briefing is allowed only in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Supplemental briefing of any kind requires leave of the court.

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

On the court’s own motion, defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is continued to November 8, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6.

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

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the motion to deposit surplus funds is continued to November 22, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6.

6. CU19-084309 Michael Rainey vs. Nevada Irrigation District Board of Directors

No appearance is required. Defendant Nevada Irrigation District (NID)’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438(c)(1)(B)(ii) and the common law is granted.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.

In the June 24, 2024 statement of decision related to the bench trial for the first cause of action regarding inverse condemnation, the court concluded, in part: "Plaintiffs have failed to establish by a preponderance of credible evidence that: (1) the inherent risks manifested i.e., leakage/ seepage from the NID Canal; and (2) such leakage/ seepage was a substantial cause of their landslide property damage." Statement of Decision at 4; see also 4, n. 2.

To prevail on his remaining claims of nuisance (second cause of action) and dangerous condition (third cause of action), plaintiff Pachaud must prove that NID "proximately" caused the landslide related damage to his property. See Gov't Code § 835 (dangerous condition causation); Mellon v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 542 (nuisance causation). Plaintiffs’ failure to establish causation during the bench trial is dispositive of Plaintiff Pachaud's remaining second and third causes of action. The court has already concluded that NID's Red Hill Canal did not cause or contribute to the landslide damage on both plaintiffs' properties. That being the case, plaintiff Pachaud cannot state a cause of action on the remaining nuisance and dangerous condition causes of action as to his property. See, e.g., Bookout v. State of California ex. Rel Department of Transportation (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 1478, 1481, 1488; McCorkle v. State Farm Ins. Co. (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 610, 616.

The court is not persuaded by any of plaintiff Pachaud’s arguments to the contrary, including those premised on the decision in Darbun Enterprises, Inc., v. San Fernando Community Hospital (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 399. In short, the court made it clear in its decision granting bifurcation that it would decide the issue of liability in connection with the inverse condemnation claim, which expressly and necessarily included the issue of causation. Darbun has no application to this case.

October 11, 2024 Dept. 6 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. CU0000861 Patrick H. Dwyer vs. Dr. Andrea L. Harris et al

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition

Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED.

The parties have agreed to October 28, 2024 as the date for plaintiff’s deposition. Given the number of times the deposition was set, canceled by plaintiff, and re-noticed, he is ordered to appear on the agreed-upon date.

Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Defendants’ motion to compel documents responsive to Request Nos. 1, 6-8, 10, 28, and 29 is GRANTED.

A party may obtain the discovery through a request for production of documents that are in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (a) - (e).) If a party fails to produce requested discoverable documents, e.g., through inspection or copying, the requesting party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).

In connection with plaintiff’s previous motion for protective order, the court determined that the above categories of documents were not subject to protection, either because the request sought records for medical conditions that plaintiff has placed at issue in this case or because the request did not seek privileged or confidential documents and/or plaintiff had already affirmed that the requested documents were not in his possession.

Plaintiff shall produce documents responsive to these requests on or before October 18, 2024.

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order

Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff shall have the burden of filing a motion with the court for any dispute arising out of the protective order.

On a motion to compel production of documents, the moving party has the burden of showing good cause for production (Code Civ. Proc. 2031.310(b)(1)). Similarly, on a motion for protective order, the moving party has the burden of showing good cause for keeping the disputed documents protected (Code Civ. Proc. 2031.060(b)). As this is a motion for protective order by plaintiff, it is his burden to file any motion relating to the protective order.

The protective order will include language confirming that it does not apply to facts, information, or assertions placed at issue in the subject lawsuit.

The protective order shall not include a stipulation to file documents in this lawsuit under seal.

Any consultants to whom documents have been provided shall be held to the terms of the protective order, including consultants retained prior to issuance of the protective order.

There is no reason that consultants already retained should not be bound by the terms of the protective order, the purpose of which is to protect plaintiff’s confidential information. To the extent that defendants’ consultants have such information, they should be subject to the protective order. There is also no burden on defendants to see to it that they are.

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

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory judgment is continued to October 25, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6, the same date as defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition. Should that motion be granted, the hearing on the subject motion will be continued to a date after the deposition.

3. CU0000956 Schroyer, Howard v. DuBois, Tod

Respondent's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Respondent’s motion fails because it provides no new or different facts, circumstances, or law upon which the court may reconsider its order.

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

Defendant’s unopposed motion to set aside default is granted. Defendant’s answer that was filed before entry of default shall stand as defendant’s responsive pleading.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) allows a court to set aside a default entered against a party through that party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The motion must be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after entry of default.

Preliminarily, defendant’s motion asserts that default was entered against him on March 19, 2024. That is incorrect; that default was against co-defendant Clifford Webb. Default against Mr. Baga was entered on February 20, 2024, which makes his motion filed on September 5, 2024 untimely under CCP 473.

CCP section 473.5 does provide the requested relief. That section provides:

When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice

to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default

judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he

or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the

default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action.

The notice of motion shall be served and filed within a reasonable

time, but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i) two years after

entry of a default judgment against him or her; or (ii) 180 days

after service on him or her of a written notice that the default or

default judgment has been entered.

The motion must include a sworn declaration showing that “the party's lack of actual notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect” Id.

While default against Peter Baga was entered on February 20, 2024, it was not served on him until March 21, 2024. Thus, he had until September 17, 2024 to seek to set it aside. As his motion was filed on September 5, 2024, it is timely.

The declaration supporting defendant’s motion shows that his lack of notice of the request for default was caused by excusable neglect and not avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect. In the months between December 2023 and April 2024, defendant was, in his words, “deathly ill” with double pneumonia and double RSV. While his illness did not prevent him from filing a responsive pleading, it was a basic general denial, which did not require the effort that a motion to set aside a default would have required.

“Courts favor relief from entry of default or default judgment because of a long-standing judicial preference for determining a matter on its merits; thus, any doubts are resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default”. Rappleyea v Campbell (1994) 8 C4th 975, 980. Under the facts presented, defendant’s motion to set aside default is timely and it shows excusable neglect. Any doubts should be resolved in his favor, particularly when there is no prejudice to plaintiff, who did not oppose the motion.

5. CU0001491 Amy Barker vs. Dynasty Valley, LLC, a California limited liability company

Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of her individual, class, and representative claims is granted.

General rules of contract interpretation apply to what the parties already agree is a valid arbitration agreement. Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 223, 236. Among those rules are that the language of a contract governs its interpretation if the language is “clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity.” Civ. Code 1638. Moreover, to the extent possible, the intention of the parties is to be determined from the writing itself. Civ. Code 1639. Finally, “the whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.” Civ. Code 1640.

The case of Garner v. Inter-State Oil Co. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 619, cited by plaintiff, and the case of Nelsen v. Legacy Partners Residential, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1115, cited by defendant, are instructive.

In Garner, plaintiff alleged employment-related claims and sought class certification. Based on an arbitration agreement signed by both parties, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of only the individual claims. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that, read as a whole, the plain language of the arbitration agreement - which included class action claims - gave plaintiff the right to arbitrate his class action claims.

On the other hand, in Nelson, also an employment-related class action lawsuit, the arbitration agreement that both parties signed was limited by its terms to plaintiff’s individual claims. Noting that the agreement identified only the two parties and that there was no language reflecting an intent to allow class arbitration, the court concluded that the agreement did not permit class arbitrations.

Defendant highlights the terms of the Agreement identifying the parties: “My employment”, “I may enjoy”, “my compensation”, to argue that the Agreement is limited to individual claims. In doing so, defendant ignores the terms of the Agreement that includes class actions: “As well as claims I seek to bring as a representative or part of a class”.

Tying together the Dispute Resolution Policy, which provides that “all” disputes relating to employment with Defendant are to be arbitrated, with the terms of the Agreement, which includes representative and class claims, the parties’ clear intent is that the Agreement includes claims, not only by individual employees of defendant, but also claims by employees as representative or part of a class.

Defendant argues that it is the arbitrator, and not the court, that has authority to determine the enforceability of the terms of the Arbitration Agreement. In fact, that issue is determined by the court unless there is “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the parties agree to delegate that issue to the arbitrator. Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 781. Incorporation of the Rules of the American Arbitration Association do not constitute such evidence. Id.

6. CU0001578 duBois, Tod v. McGuckin, Tiffany

7. CU0001579 duBois, Tod v. McGuckin, Jon

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Respondent’s motion fails because it provides no new or different facts, circumstances, or law upon which the court may reconsider its order.

October 4, 2024 Dept. 6 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. CU0001500 In the Matter of Erin Jennings

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the petition for name change is continued to November 22, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner is required to publish the order to show case at least once each week for four successive weeks before the date set for hearing on the petition in a newspaper of general circulation. Petitioner must also file a proof of service as to the minor’s other parent.

2. CU0001541 In the Matter of John Ray Dewey

The petition for name change is granted as prayed.

3. CU0001554 In the Matter of Elizabeth Molaro

The petition for name change is granted as prayed.

4. CU0001562 In the Matter of Dawn Thibeault

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the petition for name change is continued to November 22, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner is required to publish the order to show case at least once each week for four successive weeks before the date set for hearing on the petition in a newspaper of general circulation. Petition must be signed by both parents if both consent, or it must be served on the non-signing parent if that parent does not consent to the name change.

5. CL0001030 TD Bank USA, N.A. vs. Heather Haddock

Plaintiff's July 9, 2024 unopposed, motion to vacate dismissal and to enter judgment is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (a) provides:

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

A request for the trial court to retain jurisdiction under CCP section 664.6 "must conform to the same three requirements which the Legislature and the courts have deemed necessary for section 664.6 enforcement of the settlement itself: the request must be made (1) during the pendency of the case, not after the case has been dismissed in its entirety, (2) by the parties themselves, and (3) either in a writing signed by the parties or orally before the court. The request must be express, not implied from other language, and it must be clear and unambiguous." Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. vv. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal App 5th 913, 917-918.

In this case, the parties agreed to have the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. That request satisfies the requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Specifically, the request was made during the pendency of the case in a clear and unambiguous writing signed by both parties.

Among other things, the parties agreed that the court could set aside the dismissal and enter judgment if defendant failed to make payments as previously agreed. Defendant has defaulted on that term of the settlement agreement.

The dismissal entered on May 6, 2024 is set aside and vacated. Judgment in the amount of $3,979.61 is entered against defendant.

6. CU0000191 David Elliott, et al. vs. Ellen Nevarez, et al.

The application of Logan M. Owens to appear pro hac vice is granted as prayed. The application of Robert L. Shannon to appear pro hac vice is granted as prayed.

7. CU0001517 Lake Life Resorts LLC vs. Tod duBois

Respondent’s September 10, 2024 motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 29, 2024 restraining order is DENIED.

Respondent’s motion fails for the following reasons:

It was served electronically to an unrepresented party who has not consented to electronic service in violation of Rule of Court 2.251(c)(3)(B) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(c)(2);
It was filed on September 10, 2024, more than ten days after the order granting the petition for workplace violence restraining order was issued in respondent’s presence on August 29, 2024 and served on respondent in court.

It provides no new or different facts, circumstances, or law upon which the court may reconsider its order and has not demonstrated why, through the exercise of diligence, such facts could not have been presented at the original hearing.

8. P20-16664 In the Matter of Sandra Robinson

The motion to be relieved as counsel is granted as prayed.

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

Demurrer

Defendant Dr. Fakiri’s and Dr. Cheema, M.D., Inc., dba Capital Medical Extended Care’s (Capital Medical) September 4, 2024 demurrer to the first and second causes of action of plaintiffs’ first amended complaint is sustained as to defendant Dr. Fakiri and overruled as to defendant Capital Medical.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is granted in its entirety.

Demurrer Standard

“A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034. “It has been consistently held that ‘“a plaintiff is required only to set forth the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn. Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099, cited with approval by Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.

“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70). The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.'” Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; accord McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 72, 79.

Defendants’ demurrer lies against the first cause of action of plaintiffs’ first amended complaint for elder abuse and the second cause of action for negligence/willful misconduct contained in plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. Specifically, defendants argue that the facts pled fail to state these causes of action.

First Cause of Action for Elder Abuse and Neglect

Defendants argue, among other things, that “The first cause of action does not allege facts on the part of Dr. Fakiri and CAPITAL MEDICAL amounting to conduct constituting ‘recklessness, oppression, fraud or malice’ as required by Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657.” The court agrees in part.

Fenimore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348 sets forth the applicable standard:

Under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the Elder Abuse Act or the Act) (§ 15600 et seq.), abuse of an elder or dependent adult may take several forms, including “neglect” and “[t]he deprivation by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.” (§ 15610.07, subd. (a).) As pertinent here, neglect means “[t]he negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of an elder or a dependent adult to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.” (§ 15610.57, subd. (a)(1).) Neglect includes, but is not limited to, the “[f]ailure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs” and the “[f]ailure to protect from health and safety hazards.” (Id., subd. (b)(2), (3); see § 15610.35, subds. (a), (e).)

The Elder Abuse Act's heightened remedies do not apply to acts of professional negligence. (§ 15657.2; Delaney [v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 32,] 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 610, 971 P.2d 986.) Hence, the Act does not provide liability for simple or gross negligence by health care providers. (Sababin v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 81, 88, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 266 (Sababin ).) Plaintiffs must plead and prove something more than negligence—that is, reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct. (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 406, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 895 (Carter ).) “The latter three categories involve ‘intentional,’ ‘willful,’ or ‘conscious’ wrongdoing of a ‘despicable’ or ‘injurious’ nature.” (Delaney, supra, at p. 31, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 610, 971 P.2d 986.) Recklessness is “a subjective state of culpability greater than simple negligence, which has been described as a ‘deliberate disregard’ of the ‘high degree of probability’ that an injury will occur. [citations.] Recklessness, unlike negligence, involves more than ‘inadvertence, incompetence, unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions’ but rather rises to the level of a ‘conscious choice of a course of action ... with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it.’ ” (Id. at pp. 31–32, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 610, 971 P.2d 986.)

Id. at 1346-7.

Ordinarily, mere allegations of a “delay in diagnosis and proper treatment” will show nothing more than “mere incompetence or unskillfulness, i.e., negligence.” Id. at 1348. Here, the relevant allegations related to Dr. Fakiri do not allege sufficient facts to establish that the Doctor engaged in conduct that was reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 39, 42. However, the relevant allegations related to Capital Medical staff, liberally construed, do allege sufficient facts to establish that staff engaged in conduct that was reckless, namely the decision by two members of staff not to transfer decedent to the hospital when her condition was deteriorating in disregard of doctor’s orders and decedent’s known serious respiratory condition. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 39, 42, 45, 50; e.g., Sababin, 144 Cal.App.4th at 90.

Defendants argue in addition that “The first cause of action does not allege facts on the part of CAPITAL MEDICAL constituting authorization or ratification of the alleged abuse as required by Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657.” The court does not agree.

Ratification is the “voluntary election by a person to adopt in some manner as his own an act which was purportedly done on his behalf by another person, the effect of which, as to some or all persons, is to treat the act as if originally authorized by him.” Fretland v. County of Humboldt (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1490-1491. Failure to discharge an agent after learning of misconduct is one such act that may be considered ratification. C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal App 4th 1094, 1111. Retention of financial benefits of the agent’s act may be another. Reusche v. California Pacifica Title Ins. Co. (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 731, 737. The operative complaint includes such allegations. See Amended Complaint ¶ 37.

The demurrer to the first claim is sustained as to defendant Dr. Fakiri and overruled as to Capital Medical.

Second Cause of Action for Negligence/Willful Misconduct

Defendants argue that the second cause of action fails to set forth sufficient facts for a cause of action for willful misconduct. They also allege that there are insufficient allegations of even negligence against Dr. Fakiri.

As a preliminary matter, “[a]ll that is necessary as against a general demurrer is to plead facts entitling the plaintiff to some relief. In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the rule is that if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good”. Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal App 2d 636, 639. The second cause of action does not plead sufficient facts to establish breach of a duty or causation as to Dr. Fakiri; it does plead sufficient facts supporting a claim for negligence against the other Capital Medical personnel. See Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 526 (negligence elements).

Similarly, the second cause of action alleges sufficient facts to establish willful misconduct on the part of the Capital Medical medical personnel (other than the Doctor), but is insufficient as to the Doctor. See Berkley, 152 Cal.App.4th at 528 (elements willful misconduct); Amended Complaint ¶¶ 39, 42, 45, 50.

The demurrer to the second claim is sustained as to defendant Dr. Fakiri and overruled as to Capital Medical.

Leave to Amend

“Where the complaint is defective, ‘[i]n the furtherance of justice great liberality should be exercised in permitting a plaintiff to amend his complaint, and it ordinarily constitutes an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. [Citations.]’ ” Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 970–971. However, “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that “there is a reasonable possibility the plaintiff could cure the defect with an amendment.” Jo Redland Trust, U.A.D. 4-6-05 v. CIT Bank, N.A. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 142, 162. “The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.” Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.

Plaintiffs have not established, as is their burden, how the defects at issue regarding Dr. Fakiri can be remedied. Leave to amend is denied on this record.

Answer

Defendant Capital Medical shall file an answer to the operative complaint within ten days after service of notice of the order.

Motion to Strike

Defendant Fakiri’s and defendant Capital Medical’s September 4, 2024 motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part.

Standard of Review

A motion to strike lies either (1) to strike any “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court.” Cal. C. Civ. Proc. § 436. As with a demurrer, the grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack. Cal. C. Civ. Proc. § 437.

When determining the effect of a pleading, the allegations “must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” Cal. C. Civ. Proc. § 452. Thus, in ruling on a motion to strike, the allegations of the complaint are to be read in context and presumed true. Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.

A complaint need only allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts. "[A] plaintiff is required to only set forth the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action." Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550. Even conclusory allegations will not be stricken when they are supported by other factual allegations. Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.

Claim for Punitive Damages

As a preliminary matter, defendants contend that plaintiffs have not complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13. That is correct.

Section 425.13(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]n any action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider, no claim for punitive damages shall be included” unless the plaintiff “within two years after the complaint or initial pleading is filed or not less than nine months before the date the matter is first set for trial, whichever is earlier” files a motion demonstrating a “substantial probability” he or she will prevail on the claim.

Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 780. Of note, these requirements do not apply to punitive damage claims in actions alleging elder abuse. See id. at 776.

Both named defendants, Dr. Fakiri and Dr. Cheema, dba Capital Medical are health care providers. See Code Civ. Proc. § 425.13 (“For the purposes of this section, “health care provider” means any person licensed or certified pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code, or licensed pursuant to the Osteopathic Initiative Act, or the Chiropractic Initiative Act, or licensed pursuant to Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 1440) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code ….”) Moreover, the second cause of action arises out of purported negligence of or ratified by the health care providers. As such, with respect to the second cause of action, the allegations related to punitive damages are stricken, namely Amended Complaint paragraph 74.

Defendants also contend that the operative complaint does not allege “facts constituting the type of extreme misconduct needed to give rise to a claim for punitive damages.” The court is not persuaded.

A complaint requesting punitive damages must include “specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious.” Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal App 5th 1137, 1193. A claim for punitive damages without sufficient factual allegations to support it constitutes improper matter that should be stricken.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657 allows for enhanced remedies if plaintiff makes a showing of recklessness, malice, oppression, or fraud. This section does not provide for recovery of punitive damages based on recklessness, but if malice, oppression, or fraud are shown, such damages may be recoverable under Civil Code section 3294.

Civil Code section 3294 provides:

“Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

“Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.

“Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint does not contain facts supporting an allegation of fraud, but, liberally construed, does include support for allegations of oppression and malice, namely the decision not to transfer decedent to the hospital when her condition was deteriorating in disregard of doctor’s orders.

Defendants also argue that plaintiffs have not alleged facts constituting authorization or ratification. Again, the court is not persuaded. An employer who neither directs nor ratifies the act of its employer is not liable for punitive damages. See Ebaugh v. Rabkin (1972) 22 Cal. App.3d 891, 895. Here, however, plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleges facts to support a claim for ratification as discussed previously.

The motion to strike the claim for punitive damages related to the first cause of action, namely Amended Complaint paragraph 64, is denied.

Lastly, the motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages against all defendants is denied, given that punitive damages can properly be sought with respect to the first cause of action as to defendant Capital Medical.

Claim for Neglect

The court has concluded that plaintiffs have stated a claim for neglect as to defendant Capital Medical. As such, defendants’ request to strike allegations of neglect in the second cause of action, Amended Complaint paragraph 69, is denied.

Claim for Attorney’s Fees

Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657 allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs in an elder neglect case if plaintiff establishes recklessness by clear and convincing evidence. Recklessness is defined as a “conscious choice of a course of action with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it.” Delaney v. Baker (1999) 20 Cal.4th 23, 31-32.

As explained in the ruling on defendants’ demurrer, plaintiffs’ first amended complaint makes an adequate showing of recklessness. Therefore, defendants’ motion to strike the prayer for attorney’s fees, Amended Complaint Prayer, Item 3, is denied.

September 20, 2024 Dept. 6 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001432 Cavalry SPV I LLC as assignee of Citibank N.A. vs. Lennie Mitchell

No appearance is required. Defendant’s August 23, 2024 motion to set aside default and default judgment and motion to stay execution are DENIED without prejudice. Defendant has not filed a proof of service of the motion on plaintiff. By law, plaintiff must be served with all moving papers and defendant must provide proof of the same. See Code Civ. Proc. §1005(b).

2. CU0000396 Amanda Peterson, et al. v. Larry Holt, et al.

Plaintiff’s August 29, 2024 motion to compel defendant’s deposition and production of documents is DENIED.

The decision for this matter is governed by Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568:

Subdivision (a) of section 2024.020 specifies that “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right ... to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Italics added.) Thus, if a party properly notices a discovery motion to be heard on or before the discovery motion cutoff date, that party has a right to have the motion heard. By negative implication, a party who notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not have a right to have the motion heard. But the fact that a party does not have a right to have a discovery motion heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not mean the court has no power to hear it, or that the court errs in hearing it. Indeed, subdivision (a) of section 2024.050 specifically allows a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date by providing that “the court may grant leave ... to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.” But that statute also specifies that such leave may be granted “[o]n motion of any party.” (§ 2024.050, subd. (a).) Moreover, such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, and in exercising its discretion to grant or deny the motion the court must consider various factors, including (but not limited to) “[t]he necessity and the reasons for the discovery” and “[t]he diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking ... the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that ... the discovery motion was not heard earlier.” (§ 2024.050, subds. (a) & (b)(1), (2).)

Id. at 1586–1587 (italics supplied).

That discovery is closed in the present case is without dispute. At the June 26, 2024 hearing on defendant’s motion to continue trial, defense counsel made an oral motion to re-open discovery. Plaintiff, through counsel, objected and the court indicated that a motion to re-open discovery would need to be filed. To the court’s knowledge, no party has filed such a request and discovery remains closed.

This court lacks the discretion to simply hear the motion to compel without first deciding whether discovery should be reopened for that purpose under all of the relevant circumstances. See id. at 1588 (“By simply hearing the motion to compel without first deciding whether discovery should be reopened for that purpose under all of the relevant circumstances, the trial court ‘transgresse[d] the confines of the applicable principles of law” and thereby abused its discretion.’”)(citation omitted).

3. CU0000795 Mark G. Jones vs. Barbara L. Reamer, et al

The August 8, 2024 motion to set aside default filed by defendant SPFF, LP is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for costs and for his time in the amount of $1,000 is DENIED.

CCP Section 473(b) provides, in pertinent part:

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or

his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order,

or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application

for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other

pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall

not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case

exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding

was taken.

A trial court has broad discretion to grant relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), which is to be liberally construed. “Any doubts existing as to the propriety of setting aside a default thereunder will be resolved in favor of a hearing on the merits.” Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal. App. 3d 900, 909. Moreover, when there is no showing of prejudice to the party opposing the motion to set aside a default, only “very slight” evidence is required to justify a court in setting aside the default. Buckert v. Briggs (1971) 15 Cal. App. 3d 296, 302–303. Relief under section 473(b) may be granted for a default and default judgment based on a party’s failure to inform an attorney of the service of the summons and complaint if that failure is the result of excusable inadvertence. See Benjamin v. Dalmo Mfg. Co. (1948) 31 Cal. 2d 523, 527; see also Pearson v. Continental Airlines (1970) 11 Cal. App. 3d 613, 617; Gorman v. California Transit Co. (1926) 199 Cal. 246, 248-249; and Bernards v. Grey (1950) 97 Cal. App. 2d 679, 686.

Here, the court is persuaded the default was obtained and entered as the result of SPFF’s inadvertence, mistake, excusable neglect, and surprise, and SPFF has acted with appropriate diligence to attempt to remedy its error. See Navarro Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Brozek Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, Macias Decl. ¶¶ 2-7. Relief is warranted. The court is not persuaded by any of plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.

When a court sets aside a default, it has discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(c) to impose a penalty of up to $1,000 on the defaulting party or its attorney. The court is not inclined to penalize defendant, which promptly contacted an attorney upon discovering that it had been served with a complaint. That attorney acted reasonably thereafter to retrieve relevant court documents and attempt to informally resolve this matter prior to filing the instant motion.

Defendant shall file the demurrer attached to its motion, including a declaration setting forth the parties’ meet and confer efforts, within ten days of notice of this order.

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

The July 16, 2024 motion for an order to deposit surplus proceeds from sale and discharging petitioner Mortgage Lender Services, Inc., and the related July 22, 2024 claim of Mark Jones are continued on the court’s motion to October 25, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

5. CL0001447 Vanessa Starkey vs. Jeremiah Storer

Appearances are required. Defendant’s September 9, 2024 demurrer is overruled. Plaintiff has adequately alleged a cause of action for unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent. Plaintiff has adequately alleged that plaintiff and defendant are proper parties; the former is the alleged owner of the tenancy and defendant is allegedly in wrongful possession of the same. This court also has jurisdiction over the instant matter dispute. Defendant shall file an answer to the complaint within five days of notice of this decision.

6. CL0001887 Paul Kolbus v. William Hackett

Appearances are required. Defendant’s August 14, 2024 demurrer is overruled. There is no proof that defendant has served a notice of hearing on plaintiff in connection with the demurrer as required by law. See Cal. Rule Court 3.1320(c). Defendant shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint within five days of notice of this decision.

7. PR0000440 In the Matter of Katherine Rupert Kinaman

No appearance is required. The June 13, 2024 motion of Nicholas Pastor to be relieved as attorney for Katherine Kinaman is granted as prayed. The court is satisfied that Ms. Kinaman has been provided adequate notice of the instant motion by service of the required documents on June 20, 2024 and on September 13, 2024.

September 13, 2024 Dept. 6 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001357 Student Loan Solutions, LLC vs. Juliet L Hiles-Mcgrath

Defendant’s July 10, 2024 motion to dismiss the complaint is DENIED.

Involuntary dismissals are governed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.110 to 583.430, which address dismissals for failure to serve a summons and complaint, for failure to bring an action to trial or for new trial, or for delay in prosecution. A party looking for a dismissal on the grounds of statute of limitations can do so by a demurrer, see Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, or a motion for summary judgment. See Code Civ. Proc. § 437(c). Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis of a statute of limitations defense is improper.

Even if plaintiff’s motion were proper, the complaint is not barred by the four-year statute of limitation for breach of a written contract under Code of Civil Procedure section 337. Each installment has a separate limitations period which starts running the day immediately after an installment payment is due. See Conway v. Bughouse. Inc., 105 Cal. App. 3d 194, 202 (1980). Moreover, the loan at issue in this case contains an acceleration clause, which gave plaintiff the option to call the entire outstanding loan amount due and payable if defendant failed to make a monthly installment payment. See Trigg v. Arnott (1937) 22 Cal App.2d 455, 459.

In this case, the complaint was filed on January 11, 2024. Plaintiff is only seeking installments from four years before that date through the end of the loan, with the final installment owing on December 30, 2028. Those payments, excluding pre-judgment interest, total $11,033.28, and all fall within the applicable four-year statute of limitations.

2. CU0000180 John Cano v. Jordan Jiannino

Plaintiff’s August 14, 2024 motion to continue the October 22, 2024 trial is DENIED.

The applicable standard is summarized in Reales Investment, LLC v. Johnson (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 463, 468:

Trial continuances are “disfavored” and may be granted “only on an affirmative showing of good cause.” Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c). The party requesting a continuance must do so “by a noticed motion or an ex parte application” and “with supporting declarations.” Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b). California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c) lists seven circumstances “that may indicate good cause.” California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) lists additional factors the trial court may consider, including “the proximity of the trial date, whether there were previous trial continuances, the length of the requested continuance, and the prejudice that parties or witnesses would suffer as a result of the continuance.”

Id. at 468 (parentheses and citations omitted).

Preliminarily, the court notes that this motion is the fourth request for a trial continuance. The case was originally set for trial on October 17, 2023. That date was continued by stipulation to March 19, 2024, June 18, 2024, and October 22, 2024, with the court warning the parties that further continuances “shall be highly disfavored.” Currently, trial is scheduled for October 22, 2024, with a seven-day estimate.

Plaintiff seeks a continuance due to the reported unavailability of an expert. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(7) authorizes a continuance if a party’s expert is unavailable for trial due to “excusable circumstances.” While an out-of-state teaching engagement may constitute an excusable circumstance, plaintiff’s attorney does not explain why he only recently learned about this expert’s unavailability. When the parties agreed upon the current trial date, presumably diligent counsel did so after confirming the availability of trial counsel, clients, witnesses, and experts or immediately advised them of the new date. There has been no showing as to when counsel contacted this expert to advise them of the current trial date. Moreover, there has been no showing why this expert cannot testify remotely during the period scheduled for trial, a common practice in trials these days. On this record, no persuasive showing of excusable circumstances has been demonstrated.

Plaintiff argues that additional time is needed to obtain an updated report from plaintiff’s neurosurgeon regarding his treatment plan, including possible surgery. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(6) allows for a trial continuance based on a party’s “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” This ground does not justify a continuance, however. Plaintiff reportedly had a follow up appointment scheduled for August 15, 2024, and presumably proceeded with the same. Plaintiff has more than adequate time between August 15 and the scheduled trial date to utilize the additional information from this encounter for purposes of a late October trial. The court notes, moreover, that there has been no detailed explanation as to why this information is, in fact, essential.

Plaintiff also argues that a trial continuance of five-months is warranted due to the unavailability of counsel. Unavailability of trial counsel because of excusable circumstances can be grounds for a continuance. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(3). Here, however, plaintiff has utterly failed to make the requisite showing of excusable circumstances. Plaintiff has provided no explanation for counsel’s unavailability or any specific reason as to why the attorneys are unavailable for the next five months.

To the extent plaintiff premises his request for a continuance on Code of Civil Procedure Code section 595.2, that request also lacks merit. Section 595.2 is directory only and relates to a request by the parties for a thirty-day continuance, not a five-month continuance. See Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 15–16.

All trial and pretrial dates remain as previously set.

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

Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s memorandum of costs is DENIED. The motion to tax costs is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Motion to Strike

Recovery of Costs in General

Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 entitles a prevailing party as a matter of right to recover costs after trial. The procedure for recovering such costs is set forth in Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(1)(a), which provides:

A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum

of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of

judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section

664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or

dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.

Timeliness of Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs (MC)

Plaintiff argues that defendant’s MOC is untimely, pointing to the fact that defendant served the judgment on special verdict on May 24, 2024 and did not file the MOC until June 13, 2024, seventeen days later. This argument lacks merit.

Rule of Court 3.1700 calculates the timeliness based on service of the notice of entry of judgment, which was done on May 30, 2024. The MOC was filed fourteen days later and was timely.

That said, defendant did not timely file the MOC worksheet that is to accompany the MOC summary. It was not filed until August 8, 2024, seemingly an oversight, as the proof of service (filed August 8, 2024) includes it.

Without the worksheet, a party is unable to determine which costs are reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation as opposed to merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(2). Of note, however, it appears from plaintiff’s motion that the worksheet was served because plaintiff’s motion to tax costs references specific line items from the worksheet. Thus, there is no prejudice to plaintiff for the late filing of that worksheet. See Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Development Co. (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 374, 381 (trial court, in the absence of prejudice, has broad discretion in allowing relief on grounds of inadvertence from a failure to timely file a memorandum of costs).

Validity of Defendant’s Statutory Offer to Compromise

Plaintiff argues that defendant’s Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer (998 offer) was not made in good faith and is, therefore, invalid for purposes of cost recovery. The court is not persuaded.

When a party serves a valid statutory offer to compromise that is rejected and the rejecting party does not obtain a more favorable result, Code of Civil Procedure section 998 allows for the recovery of expert fees incurred after the date of service of the statutory offer to compromise. As with other discretionary costs, the fees must have been reasonable and reasonably necessary for the conduct of the litigation. See

Code Civ. Proc. 1033.5(c)(2),(3).

When evaluating whether a 998 offer has a “reasonable prospect of acceptance,” courts evaluate circumstances of the case at the time of the offer. See Burch v. Children’s Hospital of Orange County Thrift Stores, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 537, 548. The court looks at whether the offer was within the “range of reasonably possible results” at trial, considering all of the information the offeror knew or reasonably should have known; and whether the offeror knew the offeree had sufficient information, based on what the offeree knew or reasonably should have known, to assess whether the “offer [was] a reasonable one,” such that the offeree had a “fair opportunity to intelligently evaluate the offer.” Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 692, 699-700.

Defendant’s statutory offer to compromise for $30,000 satisfies both criteria. The offer was made on March 23, 2022, one and one- half years after the answer was served, well into the discovery period, and immediately prior to the filing of discovery and dispositive motions. It was also made days after plaintiff filed her own detailed “policy demand.” The record as a whole demonstrates that plaintiff had sufficient information as of that time to intelligently evaluate the offer made by defendant. In addition, the offer was in the range of a reasonably possible results at trial considering the knowledge of both parties when the offer was made; indeed, the offer turned out to be four times more than the jury’s $7,500 verdict, before costs.

The court finds that defendant’s statutory offer to compromise was valid and entitles defendant to reasonable and reasonably necessary costs after March 23, 2022.

Motion to Tax Costs

Having determined that defendant’s 998 offer was valid and her memorandum of costs timely, the court turns to the specific items of cost that plaintiff seeks to strike. See defendant’s declaration filed 7/22/24 for receipts, bills, etc.

Defendant’s Request for Expert Fees

Plaintiff seeks to strike $27,485.00 in line 8 for defendant’s expert fees in connection with expert deposition and trial testimony. She argues that defendant’s MOC does not satisfy the reasonableness and necessity requirements of C.C.P. § 1033.5 because there is no detail or explanation to support the request for these expert fees.

Defendant’s opposition and supporting documentation provide that detail and explanation and make an adequate showing that the fees were reasonable and were reasonably necessary for the conduct of the litigation. Plaintiff did not file a reply to rebut this showing.

However, the court requires clarification as to the amounts requested by defendant for this category of costs. Specifically, line 8b shows a total of $31,220.00. Like plaintiff, the court calculates the items in line 8 to be $27,485.00. However, the court is unable to determine the basis for $2,995.00 for lines 8b5-7. Thus, the court allows for $24,490.00 for expert fees.

Plaintiff seeks to strike $3,110.00 in line 16 for Dr. Paul Berg’s medical expert fees. According to defense counsel’s declaration, Dr. Berg was originally retained to address plaintiff’s damages “based solely on pain and suffering.” Defendant’s opposition and supporting documentation make an adequate showing that the fees were reasonable and were reasonably necessary for the conduct of the litigation. Plaintiff did not file a reply to rebut this showing. This cost is recoverable.

Plaintiff seeks to strike $10,455.00 in line 16 for Von Haenel and Associates, a forensic engineering firm. Both parties retained forensic engineers; plaintiff retained two. The fact that plaintiff elected to withdraw her experts during trial does not negate the reasonableness or need for defendant to retain hers. This cost is recoverable.

Plaintiff seeks to strike $25,150.00 in line 16 for Dr. Peter Sfakianos’ medical expert fees. Dr. Sfakianos was defendant’s primary medical expert and was needed to rebut plaintiff’s injury claims. While plaintiff asserts that his fees are not reasonable, she does not explain how she came to that conclusion even after defendant provided Dr. Sfakianos’ bills. These costs can be recovered.

Plaintiff seeks to strike $5,400.00 in line 16 for Authentic 4D fees. Plaintiff’s motion incorrectly identifies this vendor as a jury consultant. Defendant explains that it provided services to review and analyze imaging studies for use by defendant’s medical experts. The supporting documentation supports this cost, which is recoverable.

Defendant’s Request for “Prohibited” Costs

Plaintiff seeks to strike $10,830.00 in line 12 for “court reporter transcript fees,” arguing that defendant is only entitled to transcripts ordered by the court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(b)(5). As correctly pointed out by defendant and demonstrated in the supporting documentation, this line item is not for transcripts but for court reporter fees. Plaintiff has not argued the unreasonableness of this item, which is recoverable.

Plaintiff seeks to strike $22,148.03 in line 16 charged by Blue Print Trial Consulting. Defense counsel’s declaration confirms that this is a jury consultant which was necessary because defense counsel, whose office is in Sacramento County, claims to be unfamiliar with the demographics of its neighbor, Nevada County. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(b)(4) prohibits the recovery of costs for investigation of jurors, which is within the purview of a jury consultant. Even if this cost is not prohibited, it is a cost that was beneficial to trial preparation but not reasonably necessary to its conduct. This cost is not allowed.

Defendant’s Request for “Unnecessary” Costs

To be allowed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, costs must be “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation". They must also be “reasonable in amount.” See Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(2).

Plaintiff seeks to strike $150.00 in line 1(b) for notice of jury fees as duplicative of jury fees in line 2(a). Defendant has not addressed this objection in her opposition, other than to say that it cannot be determined where a duplicate entry was made. It appears that this is a duplicate charge and is stricken.

Plaintiff seeks to strike $1,897.60 in line 4 for videotaping depositions, arguing that none of the depositions in this case were videotaped, which defendant confirms. Without explaining what such charges are, defendant explains that “video charges” were incurred. Defendant has not demonstrated, however, what these video charges, in fact, were. On this record, the court concludes the video charges were not reasonably necessary to the litigation. This cost is stricken.

Plaintiff seeks to strike $4,076.25 in line 16 charged by Sacramento Legal Video Center, arguing that this item should be stricken without additional details. Defense counsel’s declaration confirms that this vendor provided trial tech support services, which was necessary to assist counsel with its PowerPoint and demonstrative exhibits. Courts have allowed these discretionary costs. See Bender v County of Los Angeles (2013) 217 Cal App 4^th 968, 989-990. The court finds this was a reasonably necessary cost for the conduct of the litigation.

Plaintiff seeks to strike $950.00 in line 16 for defendant’s share of the mediator’s fee. “The question whether mediation fees should be awarded as costs in a particular matter must be determined based on the facts and circumstances of the particular action.” Berkeley Cement, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 30 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1143. Plaintiff has not set forth facts supporting her conclusory assertion that the mediation was not necessary to the conduct of the litigation or her assertion that Mr. Harris’ fee was not reasonable. If she thought his fee was too high, she could have proposed another less expensive mediator. This cost is recoverable.

Plaintiff seeks to strike $2,339.39 in line 16 for defense counsel’s lodging and travel costs as a cost not necessary to the conduct of the litigation. Defendant argues that the cost is recoverable because defense counsel was required to attend trial in person and incurred these costs to get there and stay overnight. The court agrees. This is a recoverable cost.

Defendant may recover the following items of costs, either because plaintiff did not object to them or because defendant is entitled to them:

$1,790.02 Filing and motion fees

$10,830.00 Court reporter fees

$1,048.32 Jury fees

$1,607.05 Service of process

$865.60 E-filing

$7,254.93 Deposition costs

$950.00 Mediator fee

$4,076.25 Trial tech support

$24,490.00 Expert fees pursuant to CCP 998

$5,400.00 Authentic 4D

$10,455.00 Van Haenel and Associates

$25,150.00 Dr. Peter Sfakianos

$2,339.39 Lodging and travel for defense counsel

$3,110.00 Dr. Paul Berg

$99,366.56

The following items of costs are stricken because defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s motion to tax them or because the court deems them not recoverable:

$1,897.60 Video charges related to depositions

$150.00 Duplicate jury fee entry

$22,148.03 Blue Print Trial Consulting

$6,730.00 Unsupported or miscalculated expert fees

$30,925.63

4. CU21-085655 Nicholas Findley vs. Christopher Anderson, et al.

The August 20, 2024 motion of defendants Anderson, HG Logistics, LLC, Enlighted Objects, LLC, Griffon Management, LLC, and Mericratic Society, LLC, to continue the November 5, 2024 trial is DENIED.

The applicable standard is summarized in Reales Investment, LLC v. Johnson (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 463, 468:

Id. at 468 (parentheses and citations omitted).

Continuances can be warranted upon a showing of a “significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(7). They can also be warranted for a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts. See Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(6). “In exercising its discretion [regarding a request for a continuance] the court may properly consider the extent to which the requesting party's failure to secure the contemplated evidence more seasonably results from a lack of diligence on his part.” Rodriguez v. Oto (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1038 (citing cases).

Defendants seek a continuance arguing that the action has just recently been placed at issue and that they need to conduct additional discovery. The court is not persuaded.

Some history is in order. A complaint against defendants was filed on July 21, 2021, over three years ago. The lawsuit was stayed, at the request of the parties, until the end of 2022 to allow the parties to mediate and resolve the dispute. As part of a November 2022 order, defendants were permitted until January 27, 2023 to respond to the pending complaint.

No defendants filed any response to the original complaint on or after January 27, 2023. Defendants Anderson and Enlightened filed a February 2023 cross complaint and amended March 2023 cross complaint; the latter was answered by plaintiff on April 11, 2023.

During the June 20, 2023 CMC, the court was advised that the parties had agreed to the filing of an amended complaint and agreed to the setting of trial for May 7, 2024. The court was advised that the amended complaint would be filed in no more than approximately 60 days.

Nine months later, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 21, 2024. At no time during this nine-month period, did any party advise the court regarding the delay or seek any relief in connection therewith.

On March 20, 2024, defendants, ex parte, sought to continue the May 2024 trial date for six months. The court conducted a hearing with all parties regarding the same on March 26, 2024. At the request of the parties, the court set trial for November 5, 2024. The court advised the parties that the trial date was firm, and that it would not entertain further continuances given the age of the case. The court also advised the parties that it had great concerns as to whether the parties were proceeding with appropriate diligence.

For reasons unknown, defendants did not file a demurrer and motion to strike until three months thereafter, June 6, 2024 (set for hearing on July 12, 2024). Ultimately, on motion of the court, those motions were continued until August 24, 2024 and denied. Defendants then answered the amended complaint on September 3, 2024.

Due to a discovery dispute with respect to interrogatories propounded on March 28, 2024, defendants filed a motion to compel on June 6, 2024, granted by Judge Kellegrew on August 30, 2024.

Per defendants, there is still a need to conduct further discovery, including the deposition of plaintiff. Reportedly, defendants have requested plaintiff’s availability for the same since April but have not been given a date. This showing is woefully insufficient to merit a continuance. There is no explanation offered as to what discovery has been conducted by defendants to date in this matter (initiated in 2021), what specific discovery still needs to be conducted, why such additional discovery and preparation will require six months of time, and why, with the exercise of diligence, this additional discovery and preparation could not have been completed previously.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer forthwith regarding plaintiff’s deposition date and to set the same and complete the same prior to the discovery cutoff, 30 days prior to trial.

All trial and pretrial dates remain as previously set.

5. PR0000440 In the Matter of Katherine Rupert Kinaman

No appearances are required. The motion to be relieved as counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

Mr. Pastor has not corrected the deficiencies set forth in the tentative ruling for the hearing on July 19, 2024, the original date set for the motion. Specifically, there was insufficient information to allow the court to determine that the client was served at her most recent address, as the proof of service reflected that the client was served at a Kelseyville address, but the proposed order notes a Clear Lake address as the client’s last known address. In addition, the court instructed Mr. Pastor to include a notice of the court’s tentative ruling system.

It is also noted that the motion was not served on Ravare Rupert, identified in the original petition as having limited power of attorney for Katherine Rupert.

Mr. Pastor is reminded that trial is set to begin on November 5, 2024.

6. TCU10-4288 Community Facilities District No. 04-1 vs. Grays Station, LLC

Plaintiff’s unopposed July 31, 2024 motion to modify default judgment is GRANTED.

Government Code section 53356.1 provides, in pertinent part:

pursuant to judgment in the foreclosure action at the time that

subsequent special taxes become delinquent, the court may include

the subsequent special taxes, interest, penalties, costs, fees, and other

charges in the judgment or modified judgment.

The amended judgment entered in January 2021 provides that the judgment may be amended at any time prior to sale of the property to include “any or all additional Special Tax Installments, penalties, interest and other fees, along with accrued attorneys’ fees and costs, that become due and owing after entry of this Judgment.” Amended Judgment ¶ 14. Moreover, it appears that defendant purchased the property with notice of plaintiff’s delinquent special tax liens.

September 6, 2024 Dept. 6 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. CU0001532 Jonathan Cronan vs. Scott Melville

2. CL0001802 Scott Melville vs. Jonathan Cronan

Cronan’s unopposed August 8, 2024 motions for consolidation of his quiet title action (the 1532 case) with Melville’s separate and related unlawful detainer action (the 1802 case) are GRANTED. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective September 6, 2024.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(a) provides:

When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

“[A]n action for unlawful detainer can co-exist with other causes of action in the same complaint,” but only “so long as the entire case is treated as an ordinary civil action, not as a summary proceeding.” (Lynch & Freytag v. Cooper (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 603, 608).

[T]he trial court has the power to consolidate an unlawful detainer proceeding with a simultaneously pending action in which title to the property is in issue. That is because a successful claim of title by the tenant would defeat the landlord's right to possession. ([Citation omitted.]) When an unlawful detainer proceeding and an unlimited action concerning title to the property are simultaneously pending, the trial court in which the unlimited action is pending may stay the unlawful detainer action until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action, or it may consolidate the actions. [(Citation omitted].)

Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385

Here, consolidation is proper because both cases involve an overriding common question of fact, right to title, related to the same single property. Case No. CU001532 shall be the lead case.

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

The court re-adopts its previous tentative ruling that was issued for the hearing date of August 2, 2024. It is restated below.

The July 3, 2024 motions of plaintiff Andrea Janecek and plaintiff Richard Knolle for reconsideration are DENIED. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective September 6, 2024.

CCP section 1008(b) provides, “[a] party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part ... may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law” set forth in an accompanying affidavit.  (See Global Protein Products, Inc. v. Le (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 352, 362.) In addition, a moving party must “show diligence with a satisfactory explanation for not presenting the new or different information earlier ....” (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 833.)

The motions were timely filed. That said, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the denial letter to plaintiff Vieira, the public information at the Department of General Services related to attorneys, or the case of Wences v City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal App 4th 305, are new facts, circumstances or law justifying reconsideration of the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant. The motions also do not sufficiently demonstrate why any such facts, circumstances, or law could not have been discovered earlier than plaintiffs discovered them.

Even if the court were to reconsider its previous order, its ruling would be affirmed. As held in the original order, the individual plaintiffs failed to submit a timely government tort claim and failed to submit an application to present a late government tort claim. Moreover, defendant did fail to give notice of any insufficiency or defect as to the individual claims, because no proper claim was filed by plaintiffs in their individual capacities. None of the new purported facts or law alters these conclusions.

4. CU0000663 Brian Kelley, et al. vs. Rebecca Aycock, et al.

Defendants’ July 29, 2024 motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s first amended complaint is DENIED. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective September 6, 2024.

Meet and Confer Requirement

Preliminarily, Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 requires the parties to meet and confer before incurring the time and expense of a motion to strike. “As part of the meet and confer process, the moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to being stricken and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies. The party who filed the pleading shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is legally sufficient, or, in the alternative, how the pleading could be amended to cure any legal insufficiency” (Id.).

In the declarations supporting the motion and opposition, counsel do little more than point fingers at each other for not satisfying the requirement to meet and confer. Counsel are admonished that the meet and confer requirement is just that, a requirement.

Requests for Judicial Notice

Defendants’ July 29, 2024 request for judicial notice lacks merit and is denied. Defendants’ August 29, 2024 amended request for judicial notice is untimely, lacks merit and is denied.

Motion

A motion to strike lies either (1) to strike any “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading[,]” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(a)); or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b)). As with demurrers, the grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 437.)

A complaint requesting punitive damages must include “specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious” (Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.)

Civil Code section 3294(a) authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in cases where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civil Code § 3294(c)(1) [italics added].) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. (Civil Code § 3294(c)(2).) Despicable conduct is conduct that is “so vile, base, contemptable, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by most ordinary decent people.” (Pacific Gas & Electric v. Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1159.) A conscious disregard for the safety of others may constitute malice. (G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 28.) “‘Conscious disregard’ means ‘that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences…’ Put another way, the defendant must ‘have actual knowledge of the risk of harm it is creating and, in the face of that knowledge, fail to take steps it knows will reduce or eliminate the risk of harm.’” (Butte Fire Cases (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1159.)

The court, having carefully reviewed the operative complaint, concludes that the complaint includes sufficient, specific factual allegations to show that defendant Rebecca Aycock’s conduct was malicious for purposes of a claim for punitive damages. (See FAC ¶¶ 1, 7, 17-18, 22-24). The court further concludes that the complaint includes sufficient, specific factual allegations to show that defendant Paula Aycock’s conduct was malicious for purposes of a claim for punitive damages. (See FAC ¶¶ 1, 7, 17-18, 22-24, 26-31).

5. CU0001162 Miles Hagood vs. Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc.

On the court’s own motion, plaintiff’s July 24, 2024 motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents is continued to October 4, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective September 6, 2024.

6. PR0000252 In the Matter of Ronald Louis Clark

Petitioner Debra McBrien’ June 6, 2024 motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action for rescission of the September 3, 2021 will is GRANTED. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective September 6, 2024.

Requests for Judicial Notice

Petitioner’s June 6, 2024 unopposed request for judicial notice is granted in its entirety.

Respondent’s August 8, 2024 unopposed request for judicial notice is granted in its entirety.

Evidentiary Objections

Neither party submitted objections to the other party’s evidence.

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. (See 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.)

A plaintiff filing a motion for summary judgment must meet their burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action and that they moving party has proved each element required for that cause of action which would entitle them to judgment. Once that burden is met, it then shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant may not rely upon the mere 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 that cause of action or a defense thereto. (See Code Civ. Proc. 437c(p)(1).)

A motion for summary judgement or summary adjudication is a proper and recognized mechanism for disposing of claims in probate court. (See Prob. Code section 1000; In re Goddard’s Estate (1958) 164 Cal App.2d 152.) It may be utilized to rule as a matter of law whether a decedent had testamentary capacity such that a will should be invalidated.

Probate Code section 6100.5(a)(1)(c) provides, in pertinent part, “(a) An individual is not mentally competent to make a will if, at the time of making the will (1) the individual does not have sufficient mental capacity to be able to: …(c) remember and understand the individual's relations to living descendants, spouse, and parents, and those whose interests are affected by the will.”

In determining testamentary capacity, a court decides the question of whether, at the time the will is made, the testator has sufficient mental capacity to “remember, and understand his relations to, the persons who have claims upon his bounty and whose interests are affected by the provisions of the instrument." (Andersen v. Hunt (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 722, 727).

Based on evidence submitted by both parties, it is undisputed that petitioner and decedent shared a mother but not a father, and that decedent, in fact, had three living siblings (petitioner Debra McBrien, Arthur Gallez, Jr., and Brenda Davis) at the time he executed the September 3, 2021 will in question. (Indeed, in its order of February 22, 2024, the court determined that petitioner is the sister of decedent.) This notwithstanding, decedent declared in the will that he was an only child and had no siblings. The clear inference, thus, is that at the time of making his will, decedent did not remember or understand that he, in fact, had siblings. Petitioner has met her burden of establishing that the decedent was not mentally competent to make a will because, at the time of the purported instrument, he did not remember or did not understand his relations to persons who had claims upon his bounty and whose interests were affected by the provisions of the will.

Respondent argues that Mr. Clark was an only child because he had no siblings that shared both parents. Per respondent: “The petitioner fails to distinguish between ‘only child’ status and nuclear family and extended or preliminary family unit thus the asser[tion] that Mr. Clark was incapable of understanding his family relations stand debunked.” (Opposition Memorandum at p. 3:22-24.) Respondent’s argument is not persuasive. The relevant provisions of the Probate Code do not render half-siblings (those who share only one parent) to be of lesser standing to siblings who share both parents. “[R]elatives of the halfblood inherit the same share they would inherit if they were of the whole blood.” (Prob. Code, § 6406.)

The burden shifted to respondent to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts existed as to the first cause of action or a defense thereto. Respondent has failed to set forth any specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action. As such, petitioner is entitled to summary adjudication as to that first cause of action solely.

August 30, 2024 Dept. 6 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

CU0001347 Patricia Kukucka, et al vs. Grass Valley SH, LLC, et al.

Defendant’s petition to compel arbitration and to stay this action is GRANTED.

Grass Valley SH, LLC dba Brunswick Village (“Brunswick Village”) and Integral Senior Living, LLC (collectively “Defendants”), seek an order compelling plaintiffs Patricia Kukucka (through her successor in interest, Allen Kukucka) and Allen Kukucka (individually) to submit all of their claims against defendants to binding arbitration in conformity with an arbitration agreement executed by Mr. Kukucka.

Plaintiffs contend that:

(A) Defendants failed to establish a valid agreement to arbitrate between any Plaintiff and Integral, who is not a party, signatory, or reference in the Agreement; (B) Under both the FAA and CAA, the Petition must be denied as to Allen’s wrongful death claim because he did not agree to arbitrate in his individual capacity; (C) To compel Mrs. Kukucka’s claims to arbitration would pose a great risk of conflicting rulings of fact and law in light of the non-arbitrability of Allen’s claim and the Court has discretion to deny Defendants’ Petition under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.2 (c) because the CAA procedural rules are not preempted by the FAA when the Agreement invokes State law as this one does; (D) Even if the Court finds a valid agreement exists with respect to the claims at issue, Defendants’ Petition should still be denied in its entirety because it is unenforceable due to the procedural and substantive unconscionability present.

In short, defendants’ request is well founded, plaintiffs’ objections notwithstanding.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 provides in pertinent part:

On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence

of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the

agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the

petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines

that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.

The statute sets forth four exceptions to arbitration:

Where the party seeking to compel arbitration has waived the right

to do so;

(2) Where grounds exist for rescission of the contract;

(3) Where a party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending

court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the

same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility

of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact;

(4) Where the petitioner is a state or federally chartered depository institution.

(Code Civ. Proc. §1281.2.)

At bar, defendants have established the existence of an arbitration agreement and have shown it applies to both causes of action alleged in the complaint.

Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary lack merit. First, defendants have shown that Integral Senior Living, LLC, is bound by the arbitration agreement. The agreement expressly applies to all claims and disputes related to Ms. Kukucka’s Brunswick Village residency, whether made against Brunswick Village or “any other individual or entity,” and Mr. Kukucka contracted to submit all claims arising from his mother’s residency to binding arbitration. Moreover, Senior Living is named as a defendant in plaintiff’s complaint based on its alleged unity of interest with Brunswick Village regarding ownership and operation of the care facility. Lastly, there is a sufficiency of identity between Brunswick Village and Senior Living and the latter is an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement. (See Fuentes v. TMCSF, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 541, 547; Jensen v. U-Haul Co. of California (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 295, 301.)

Second, defendants’ petition, including excerpts from the arbitration agreement, show that plaintiff signed the agreement, not only on his mother’s behalf, but also in his individual capacity. The arbitration agreement is not ambiguous in that regard, as it specifically states in bold that by signing the agreement, plaintiff agreed to arbitrate a wrongful death arising out of his mother’s residency. Such a claim, by its nature, can only be brought by plaintiff as a surviving family member. Moreover, the agreement states, in bold, that by his signature, plaintiff agreed to submit any claims he may have as an individual arising out of his mother’s residence at Brunswick Village.

Third, there is no risk of conflicting rulings under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c) as suggested by plaintiffs. For the reasons noted previously, the court has determined that the claims of Mr. Kukucka are subject to arbitration and can be arbitrated along with those of his mother.

Lastly, the record presented demonstrates that the agreement to arbitrate was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. Contrary to plaintiffs’ assertions, the arbitration agreement was not presented to him on a take-it-or-leave it basis; the agreement was not a condition to admission; and the agreement was not improperly one-sided.

A stay is warranted. Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides, in pertinent part:

If an application has been made to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether

in this State or not, for an order to arbitrate a controversy which is an issue

involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State and

such application is undetermined, the court in which such action or proceeding

is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the

action or proceeding until the application for an order to arbitrate is determined

and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in

accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.

As the Court of Appeal notes in Federal Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1370, “because it is considered to be a speedy and relatively inexpensive method of resolving disputes, there is a strong presumption favoring arbitration” (Id. at 1374). It continues, "The purpose of the statutory stay is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved" (Id.)

Here, allowing the state court action to move forward would disrupt the arbitration proceeding to which the parties agreed.

CL0001030 TD Bank USA, N.A. vs. Heather Haddock

Judge Kellegrew prematurely addressed plaintiff’s July 9, 2024 motion to vacate dismissal and for judgment pursuant to a conditional stipulated judgment and granted the requested relief on July 12, 2024. On its own motion, the court sets aside the July 12, 2024 order and judgment. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal and enter judgment, set for hearing on August 30, 2024, is now reset for hearing on October 4, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall give notice to defendant. Any opposition/reply to the same shall be filed in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.

CU0000681 Bruce Kapsack, et al. vs. Mark Wyman, et al.

Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s further discovery is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

A party dissatisfied with another party’s discovery responses must file a motion to compel within 45 days of receipt of the responses. According to the declaration of John Domingue, plaintiff served verified discovery responses on April 24, 2024. As such, defendant had to file his motion by June 12, 2024, which Mr. Domingue acknowledged in his June 10, 2024 email to plaintiff. There is no indication in the declaration that the parties agreed on an extension of time for defendant to file the motion, which was filed on June 17, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

Although the motion is untimely, plaintiff did not make that objection in his opposition to defendant’s motion. The court will address the merits of the motion as follows:

Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1:

Plaintiff is ordered to serve a further and complete verified response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. For each of the four responses to defendant’s Request for Admissions that was not an unqualified admission (which were all four), plaintiff was required to provide the information asked in sub-sections a-d of Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.

Plaintiff shall serve verified further answers to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, including sub-sections a-d.

Further Responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-4:

Defendant’s motion to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 1 is denied. Plaintiff answered the question that was asked, which was to describe the work done by defendant in his individual capacity. If defendant wanted more detail, he could have asked for it by propounding additional interrogatories.

Defendant’s motion to compel a further response to Special Interrogatory No. 2 is denied. Plaintiff identified the individual he knew to be one who assisted defendant and stated that he did not know the identity of anyone else who worked with defendant. Again, if defendant wanted additional descriptions, he could have asked for them by propounding additional interrogatories.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve a further and complete verified response to Special Interrogatory No. 3, which asks plaintiff to describe the defects in the work performed by defendant. It is clear from plaintiff’s email of April 29, 2024 that he has more specific information as to the nature of the defects in defendant’s work. Also, if plaintiff believes that other unspecified work is not up to professional standards, he must describe the defective nature of that other work.

CU0000861 Patrick H. Dwyer vs. Dr. Andrea L. Harris, et al.

Motion for Leave to Pay Late Jury Fees

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to pay late jury fees is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 631 proclaims that the right to a trial by jury “shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.” However, that right is subject to waiver, which occurs if a party requesting a jury fails to pay a nonrefundable fee of $150 on or before the date of the initial case management conference. (Code Civ. Proc. § 631(c).) The fact that the opposing party paid its jury fees does not relieve the non-paying party of its obligation to do the same. (Ibid).

When a party fails to pay timely jury fees, the court may allow a trial by jury “upon just terms.” (Code Civ. Proc. §631(g).) If the party’s waiver of trial by jury is inadvertent and if no prejudice would result from granting relief, it is an abuse of discretion for a court to deny a motion seeking relief from a waiver. (See Winston vs. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal App 3d 600, 602.)

In this case, plaintiff admits that he missed the deadline for depositing jury fees. He explains that he was focused on meeting and conferring with defense counsel and then filing a demurrer to defendants’ answer, followed by a petition for writ of mandamus, and a petition for review by the Supreme Court. In the midst of these filings, plaintiff “inadvertently lost track” of getting jury fees deposited.

Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion, confirming that they do not claim they would be prejudiced if the motion is granted.

Motion for Protective Order

Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is GRANTED IN PART.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060(b) provides in pertinent part:

The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice

requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted

annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to,

one or more of the following directions:

***

That all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need

not be produced or made available at all.

If the moving party seeks to limit the scope of discovery, that party must show “that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.020(a)).

“[T]here can be no discovery of materials which are privileged.” (Palay v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 919, 925). Patient/medical provider privilege is a recognized privilege; however, it cannot be invoked as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning a patient's condition if such issue has been tendered by the patient. (See City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco (1951) 37 Cal. 2d 227, 232; Kizer v. Sulnick (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 431, 439-440; Evidence Code §§ 996(a), 1016(a).)

Medical records also are highly sensitive materials that fall within the scope of the right to privacy. (See Palay, 18 Cal.App.4th at 932; Wood v. Superior Court (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1138, 1147.) The constitutional right to privacy, however, is not absolute. (Palay, 18 Cal.App.4th at 933.) In the medical malpractice context, a patient’s privacy rights in her/his medical history must be weighed against a defendant’s right to prepare a defense. (Id. at 935). Specifically, a defendant has a right to discovery of a patient’s medical records “specifically related to a determination of the issues in [the medical malpractice] litigation.” (Ibid.)

At bar, there is no good cause to issue a protective order relating to defendants’ request for documents numbers 1, 8-9, 11, and 20. Defendants are entitled to plaintiff’s medical records for medical conditions that he has placed at issue in this case.

Nor is there good cause shown to issue a protective order as to defendants’ request for documents numbers 5-7, 10, 12-16, and 22-29. These requests do not seek privileged or confidential documents, or alternatively, plaintiff has affirmatively indicated that the documents sought are not in his possession.

The following requests appear to broadly seek or potentially seek plaintiff’s records for conditions that may or may not have been placed at issue in this case: request numbers 2-4, 17-19 and 21. Because some of the documents requested potentially are subject to medical party privilege or privacy protections, the parties shall prepare an appropriate protective order for these categories of documents.

The requested discovery sanctions are denied. Defendants had substantial justification to oppose a protective order related to all document requests.

August 23, 2024 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. CU0000771 State Farm General Insurance Company vs. Steven Null Chu

Defendant’s unopposed motion to continuethe trial is granted. Trial is set for October 28, 2025, 09:00 a.m.; pretrial conference is set for October 17, 2025, 11:00 a.m.; and mandatory settlement conference is set for October 6, 2025, 10:00 a.m.

2. CL0001341 The CBM Group, Inc. vs. Katie Bradeen

Defendant’s motion to set aside and stay execution of the stipulated judgment is denied.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1179 allows a tenant to seek relief from forfeiture of a lease agreement in case of a hardship. The petition must be served at least five days before the hearing. In this case, defendant did not serve her petition on plaintiff despite requests by plaintiff that she do so. Thus, defendant’s motion is denied on procedural grounds.

The petition is also denied because defendant has not made the requisite showing of hardship. She voluntarily agreed to sign the stipulation for judgment and has presented no evidence of fraud or mistake by plaintiff in obtaining defendant’s signature.

Defendant signed the stipulation on February 5, 2024. At that time, she knew she had to vacate the premises by July 31, 2024. Thus, she had one week shy of six months to find a new place to live. However, it appears from the motion and opposition that defendant first asked plaintiff for a reference in early July 2024, five months after signing the stipulation and just weeks before her deadline to vacate the premises. If it is a hardship for defendant to leave – and defendant has not provided facts establishing a hardship - she created it.

In connection with a request for a restraining order, defendant notes that the court granted an extension with a new “mutually agreed-upon move-out date of August 23, 2024”. The court notes that it gave no such extension, but defendant’s agreement to that date is evidence that it is not a hardship for her to vacate the premises.

Finally, defendant’s act of changing the lock and breaking a window constitutes a material breach of the terms of the stipulated judgment. Despite this violation, and with no obligation to do so, plaintiff has agreed to extend the deadline to August 23, 2024 for defendant to vacate the premises. The court previously denied plaintiff’s ex parte application for a writ of possession, including a request for attorney’s fees but invited plaintiff to seek possession of the premises as a noticed motion.

3. CL0001118 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Vanessa Taylor

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted.

Request for Judicial Notice

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

Standard of Review

Analysis

First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract

Plaintiff has made a showing of breach of contract, namely: that the parties entered into a contract (a card holder agreement); that plaintiff performed its obligations under the contract by extending a line of credit to defendant, that defendant breached the contract by failing to pay his credit card charges as agreed, and that plaintiff sustained damages of $21,408.60. (See Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal App 4th 1182, 1186). Defendant has not opposed the motion and has not demonstrated the existence of any triable, material issues of fact. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as to this claim.

Second Cause of Action: Common Count

Plaintiff has made a showing of the required elements for a cause of action for a common count. Specifically, plaintiff has demonstrated that the parties entered into an agreement (the card holder agreement) which was a written record of the credits and debts between the parties, that their prior transactions established a debtor-creditor relationship, that defendant promised to pay the amounts due under the agreement and did not dispute any of the charges on her monthly statement, and that defendant owes plaintiff $21,408.60. (See Zinn v. Fred R. Bright Co. (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 597, 600.) Defendant has not opposed the motion and has not demonstrated the existence of any triable, material issues of fact. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as to this claim.

4. CL0001357 Student Loan Solutions, LLC vs. Juliet Hiles-McGrath

On the court’s own motion, defendant’s motion to dismiss is continued to September 14, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

5. CU0000385 Derek Olsen, et al. vs. David Sugalski, et al.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a supplemental amended complaint is granted.

Code of Civil Procedure section 464 allows a plaintiff to file a supplemental complaint, to allege facts “material to the case occurring after the former complaint.” Unlike an amended complaint, a supplemental complaint does not supersede the original complaint. Rather, it adds new allegations that are to be considered in conjunction with the allegations of the previous complaint. (See 5 Witkin, California Procedure, Pleading §§ 1246-1253 (5th ed.).

As with a motion to amend a pleading, a motion to file a supplemental pleading must be accompanied by a declaration that includes the following: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324; Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 6:812.)

Leave to file a supplemental complaint is liberally granted. However, a plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in making such a motion is grounds for denying it. (See American Aeronautics Corp. v. Grand Cent. Aircraft Co. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 69, 83.)

Plaintiffs’ motion satisfies the procedural requirements. The amendment adds a party, Wild Acorns Learning Village, Inc., based on plaintiff learning that this entity began operating a day care center on defendants’ property after plaintiffs filed their original complaint. The amendment is necessary because this defendant’s actions interfere with plaintiff’s use of their property.

In support of that argument, plaintiffs reference a link to Wild Acorns Learning Village, Inc.’s website, which confirms that it is offering a program in the Fall “on private property in Nevada County.” Plaintiffs also point to the Secretary of State website, which lists its principal place of business at defendants’ property.

In response, defendants submit a declaration from the CEO of Wild Acorns Learning Village, Inc. She asserts that she relocated her program shortly after plaintiffs complained about it. Defendants argue that this evidence renders the supplemental complaint moot. In light of the dispute between plaintiff and defendants’ evidence on this issue, plaintiffs should not be denied the right to add this party based on facts that occurred after the original complaint. Should evidence bear out the declaration supporting defendants’ opposition, a dispositive motion can be entertained as permitted by law.

Defendants argue that plaintiffs unreasonably delayed filing the motion to supplement the complaint. While plaintiffs could have brought the motion sooner, a four-month delay on a case with no trial date is not unreasonable.

6. CU0000592 Aaron Faust vs. Tom Capozzo, et al.

On the court’s own motion, defendant’s motion to dismiss is continued to August 30, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

7. CU0000744 Bobby Jack Dempsey, Jr. vs. John Kenneth Mann

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is denied.

Motions for leave to amend pleadings are directed to the sound discretion of the Court: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1); see also Code Civ. Proc. § 576.)

A motion to amend a pleading must be accompanied by a declaration that includes the following: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

The applicable law for the instant matter is well summarized in Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168:

“ ‘[T]he trial court has wide discretion in allowing the amendment of any pleading [citations], [and] as a matter of policy the ruling of the trial court in such matters will be upheld unless a manifest or gross abuse of discretion is shown. [Citations.]’ ” (Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 486, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 547.) Nevertheless, it is also true that courts generally should permit amendment to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 433; Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 225.) But this policy applies “ ‘only “[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party.” ’ ” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp., supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 761, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 433.) Moreover, “ ‘ “even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.” ’ ” (Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 754 (Huff ); Record v. Reason, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 486, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 547.) Thus, appellate courts are less likely to find an abuse of discretion where, for example, the proposed amendment is “ ‘offered after long unexplained delay ... or where there is a lack of diligence....’ ” (Hulsey v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159, 267 Cal.Rptr. 523.)

(Id. at 175.)

As an initial matter, plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient in that the supporting declaration did not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b). The declaration of counsel Mehta asserts that new facts (the marking of the closed lane, defendant’s flight from the scene, defendant’s alleged false statements to law enforcement) were not discovered until sometime after the first complaint was filed, but it does not specify when. In his motion and reply briefs, plaintiff asserts that he did not learn of the true incident actions until after it received defendant’s October 2023 discovery responses and conducted Officer Neumann’s January 23, 2024 deposition. This rings somewhat hollow. For example, plaintiff knew on the date of the September 22, 2022 collision that defendant fled the scene and did not stop to exchange information.

That said, plaintiff has failed to offer any explanation as to why he waited until the eve of trial to seek leave to file a second amended complaint or demonstrate that he was diligent in connection with these alleged new facts. Plaintiff knew that defendant fled the scene on September 22, 2022, almost two years before bringing this motion. Plaintiff knew of the inconsistencies between the testimony of defendant and the investigating officer’s testimony by no later than January 2024, yet plaintiff waited until July 22, 2024, a full seven months, before filing the motion. Plaintiff could have and should have acted on these “newly” discovered facts much sooner than he did. Plaintiff has offered no credible explanation for the delay and has made no credible showing that he has proceeded with appropriate diligence. “[E]ven if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.” (Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 939; see Fisher v. Larsen (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 627, 649 [“Fisher knew of the motions for summary judgment as early as January 6, 1981, but took no action to amend for five months. The rights to amend a complaint rest within the sound discretion of the court [citation omitted], and may be denied where there has been a long delay in seeking the amendment.”])

Moreover, this is a situation where probable prejudice would result to defendant were amendment to be allowed. Trial is one month away, and discovery closes in a matter of weeks. The parties have filed motions in limine in reliance on the current operative complaint. Defendant, in all probability, will not have sufficient time to file a demurrer and/or other dispositive motion, conduct discovery, and potentially procure an expert to meet the new allegations. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487 [“prejudice to Farmers was clearly shown because in preparing for trial on claims of breach of contract, misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, it had not discovered or deposed many of the witnesses who would support the new allegations, and had not marshaled evidence to oppose the contention that a system wide discriminatory policy existed.”]; P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345 [amendment denied where “P & D did not seek leave to amend until after the trial readiness conference, an amendment would require additional discovery and perhaps result in a demurrer or other pretrial motion, and P & D offered no explanation for the delay.”])

8. CU0000774 In the Matter of County of Nevada

The motion of the receiver for an order allowing it to hire a realtor to sell the property at 14002 Garden Bar Road, Grass Valley “as-is” is granted.

Code of Civil Procedure section 568 grants a receiver authority to take actions with respect to receivership property as authorized by the court. To that end, Code of Civil Procedure section 568.5 allows a receiver to sell property under its control with the approval of the court, who has “broad power to determine the manner in which receivership property should be sold.” (People v Riverside University (1973) 35 Cal App 3d 572, 584.) The sale is not final until confirmed by the court. (See Code. Civ. Proc. § 568.5.)

Good cause has been established for the sale of the property as requested. The terms of the sale of the property shall be subject to final review and approval of this court.

9. CU0000941 In the Matter of the City of Grass Valley

The City of Grass Valley’s motion to disburse remaining funds from the receivership estate is granted; Newrez, LLC’s motion for disbursement of surplus funds is denied.

Health and Safety Code section 17980.7, subdivision (c)(11) provides: “The prevailing party in an action pursuant to this section shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs as may be fixed by the court.” (Italics supplied.)

“Section 17980.7, subdivision (c)(11) is the applicable statute [regarding attorney fees] where … a receiver was appointed pursuant to section 17980.7, subdivision (c).” (City of Norco v. Mugar (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 786, 799–800, citing City & County of San Francisco v. Ballard (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 381, 401.) The prevailing party provision “applies when [a] party seeks and the court orders a receiver.” (City and County of San Francisco v. Ballard, 136 Cal.App.4th at 402.)

At bar, the city was the prevailing party in this receivership action. It sought appointment of a receiver with good cause and the court appointed the same.

Health and Safety Code section 17980.7, subdivision (c)(9) provides:

The receiver shall be discharged when the conditions cited in the notice of violation have been remedied in accordance with the court order or judgment and a complete accounting of all costs and repairs has been delivered to the court. Upon removal of the condition, the owner, the mortgagee, or any lienor of record may apply for the discharge of all moneys not used by the receiver for removal of the condition and all other costs authorized by this section.

(Italics supplied.)

When interpreting a statute, “ ‘it is well settled that we must look first to the words of the statute, “because they generally provide the most reliable indicator of legislative intent.” [Citation.] If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous our inquiry ends.... In reading statutes, we are mindful that words are to be given their plain and commonsense meaning.’ ” (Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1389, 1394.)

The court focuses on the last part of the second sentence of subdivision (c)(9): “the discharge of all moneys not used by the receiver for removal of the condition and all other costs authorized by this section.” The statutory language is clear and unambiguous. Two types of expenditures are not subject to or are exempt from discharge: first, “all moneys not used by the receiver” to remedy the violating condition; second, “all other costs authorized by this section.” Put another way, section 17980.7, subdivision (c)(9), allows an owner, mortgagee or lienor to apply for any funds remaining in the receivership after deductions have been made for (1) money spent by the receiver to remediate the property, and (2) all costs authorized by section 17980.7.

The city’s requested attorney fees and costs are “other costs authorized by this section [section 17980.7].” Again, section 17980.7, subdivision (c)(11), specifically provides that “[t]he prevailing party in an action pursuant to this section shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs ….” Accordingly, the city’s fees and costs shall be paid prior to those of any mortgagee/lienor, including Newrez.

In the alternative, assuming, for argument’s sake, that the attorney’s fees and costs are not exempt from discharge and that this court must simply decide, as an equitable matter, which parties are entitled to remaining funds, this court would reach the same conclusion.

The city brought and successfully prosecuted this action to remedy terrible conditions at 905 West Main Street, Grass Valley, the property at issue, which had burdened residents, neighbors and the community at large since 2021. Newrez, by contrast, took no action to remedy the property after the owner had defaulted and a notice of default was recorded; it took no responsibility for its asset, allowed it to be laid waste, and contributed nothing to its successful remediation. The interest of fairness and justice decidedly favor the city. (See County of Sonoma v. Quail (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 657, 671 [“court orders in receivership proceedings rest ‘upon the court's ‘sound discretion exercised in view of all the surrounding facts and circumstances and in the interest of fairness, justice and the rights of the respective parties.’ ”].)

Contrary to the suggestion of Newrez, the requested fees are reasonable under the record presented.

The court has carefully considered all remaining contentions/arguments of Newrez. In short, none of these arguments/contentions is persuasive.

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

Cross-Complainant Air Vent, Inc. (AVI)'s July 1, 2024 motion to compel further deposition testimony of Powermax Electric Co., Limited Guangdong's (Powermax) person(s) most knowledgeable Stephy Tsui is granted. Ms. Tsui shall submit to an additional deposition, answers questions nos. 1-6, and produce documents related to questions nos. 7-9. Sanctions are granted against Powermax and its counsel of record in the amount of $1,350.00.

AVI’S July 1, 2024 motion for a protective order regarding the deposition of the person(s) most knowledgeable for Powermax is granted in part. Powermax's attorneys of record shall: cease from making objections other than those limited substantive objections permitted by law or objections as to form; cease from making speaking objections; and designate solely one attorney to make objections on the record (other attorneys may be present and may confer with the designated attorney as desired). A designated check interpreter, who is a certified interpreter, may be present to assist Powermax and may confer with counsel, off the record, upon request. If counsel for Powermax has a good faith reason to believe that there are issues with respect to interpretation as to a particular question or answer, under those circumstances only, the check interpreter can be queried on the record as to an alternative interpretation as to any question or answer.

Powermax’s August 1, 2024 amended motion for a protective order to limit the scope of discovery is granted in part. If the deponent is questioned regarding a document(s) and indicates that she cannot answer a question without a translation of the document(s) then a certified interpreter shall translate the document at that time, if practical given time considerations. In the event that there is not sufficient time to perform translations during the deposition, the deposition shall continue to a later date for any unanswered questions due to this issue. Counsel for the deponent shall then arrange for an appropriate translation as needed by a certified interpreter and the deposition shall then be completed with respect to any unanswered questions. All other requests for relief are denied.

11. CU22-086271 Mercedes Benz Financial Services vs. Energy Based Sols., Inc.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted.

Request for Judicial Notice

The court does not take judicial notice of Exhibit 4, the electronic lien and title, which is properly before the court from the supporting declaration of Todd McClurg.

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. (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.)

Discussion

First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract

Plaintiff has made a showing that the parties entered into a contract, that is, the retail installment contract, that plaintiff performed its obligations under the contract by extending a line of credit to defendant, that defendant breached the contract by failing to make monthly installment payments as agreed, and that plaintiff sustained damages in the amount of $69,017.24. (See Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal App 4th 1182, 1186 [elements-breach of contract].) Defendant has not opposed the motion and has not demonstrated the existence of any triable, material issues of fact. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as to this cause of action.

Second Cause of Action: Common Count

Plaintiff has made a showing that defendant became indebted to plaintiff for money expended for the benefit of defendant at defendant’s special instance and request; and that there is now due and owing $69,017.24. (See Zinn v. Fred R. Bright Co. (1969) 271 Cal App 2d 597, 600 [elements-common count.]) Defendant has not opposed the motion and has not demonstrated the existence of any triable, material issues of fact. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as to this cause of action.

Third Cause of Action: Claim and Delivery

Plaintiff has made a showing that the retail installment contract allowed plaintiff to take possession of the vehicle if defendant defaulted on the loan and a default by defendant on the loan. Hence, plaintiff has established entitlement to the remedy for claim and delivery. (See Simms v NPCK Enterprises (2003) 109 Cal App 4^th 233 [claim and delivery is “a remedy by which a party with a superior right to a specific item of personal property may recover possession of that specific property before judgment.”].) Defendant has not opposed the motion and has not demonstrated the existence of any triable, material issues of fact. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as to this cause of action.

Fourth Cause of Action: Conversion

Plaintiff has made a showing that defendant engaged in conversion of the subject vehicle, to wit, defendant’s default on the loan, defendant’s refusal to return the vehicle despite the retail installment contract provision allowing plaintiff to take possession of the vehicle in the event of default, and defendant’s refusal to return the vehicle despite the order for a writ of possession. (See Lee v Hanley (2015) 61 Cal 4th 1225, 1240 [conversion is “wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.”].) Defendant has not opposed the motion and has not demonstrated the existence of any triable, material issues of fact. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as to this cause of action.

12. CU0001460 In the Matter of Carolyn Bronson

An appearance by petitioner is required.

Probate Code section 9764 allows the personal representative for the estate of a deceased attorney to petition the court for appointment of a practice administrator “to take control of the files and assets of the decedent’s law practice.” (Probate Code § 9764(a)). The petition is filed in the county where the deceased attorney maintained his office. (See Bus. & Prof. Code § 6180.2). The proposed practice administrator must be an active member of the State Bar but cannot be the attorney representing the personal representative. (See Probate Code § 9764(e).)

The petition must specify the powers sought for the practice administrator, one of which is to take control of the deceased attorney’s client trust accounts. (See Bus. & Prof. Code § 6185(a)(1).) In addition, Probate Code section 9764 requires the petitioner to state the value of the assets that are to come under the control of the practice administrator, who is required to file a surety bond in that amount. (See Probate Code§ 9764(d).) Once the practice administrator’s duties are completed, he or she must prepare an accounting, at which point the surety bond will be exonerated and the practice administrator discharged (See Probate Code § 9764(h).)

Petitioner seeks appointment of Gregory L. McCoy, an active member of the State Bar, to take control of her late husband’s client trust accounts. The court understands from the petition and supporting declarations that petitioner has notified the State Bar of California of her husband’s death and that she is not seeking to have the practice administrator take control of client files. She states that decedent had been an inactive member of the State Bar for some time and did not have any active cases at the time of his death.

Before the court will grant the petition to appoint a practice administrator, it must receive evidence that the proposed practice administrator has filed a surety bond in the amount of the decedent’s client trust account, represented as being $29,632.83. Petitioner is also to confirm that the proposed administrator is not her attorney in her capacity as personal representative of her husband’s estate.

13. CU0000795 Mark Jones vs. Barbara Reamer, et al.

The June 17, 2024 demurrer of Veritas Capital (Veritas) to the fourth and thirteenth causes of action in plaintiff’s second amended complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant Veritas’s June 17, 2024 request for judicial notice is granted.

Fourth Cause of Action for Injunctive Relief

Injunctive relief is a remedy, not a cause of action. (Roberts v. Los Angeles County Bar Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 604, 618.) A meritorious cause of action must, therefore, underlie a request for injunctive relief. (City of South Pasadena v. Department of Transportation (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1280, 129.) The operative complaint fails to allege any wrongful conduct or specific underlying cause of action against defendant Veritas.

Thirteenth Cause of Action to Quiet Title

The complaint fails to allege any wrongful conduct by defendant Veritas. In fact, the only conduct that the complaint alleges as to Veritas is that Veritas purchased one of the vacant lots at the trustee’s sale. Purchasing a property at a duly noticed trustee’s sale is not wrongful in and of itself. Melendrez v. D&I Investment Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1251, holds that a purchaser who pays less than fair market value for a property sold at a trustee’s sale and who has no notice of competing claims is entitled to the conclusive presumption in Civil Code section 2924(c). Plaintiff appears to argue in opposition that Veritas was not a bona fide purchaser entitled to the protections of Civil Code section 2924(c) because “it is virtually certain that the defendant was well aware of the existence of the Complaint.” The complaint does not allege any facts demonstrating that Veritas was not such a purchaser.

Amendment Showing

“Where the complaint is defective, ‘[i]n the furtherance of justice great liberality should be exercised in permitting a plaintiff to amend his complaint, and it ordinarily constitutes an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. [Citations.]’ ” (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 970–971.) However, “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that “there is a reasonable possibility the plaintiff could cure the defect with an amendment.” (Jo Redland Trust, U.A.D. 4-6-05 v. CIT Bank, N.A. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 142, 162.) “The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.” (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.) At bar, plaintiff made no such showing in his opposition. On this record, leave to amend is denied.

14. CU21-085655 Nicholas Findley vs. Christopher Anderson, et al.

Defendant’s demurrer is overruled and defendant’s motion to strike is denied.

Demurrer

Judicial Notice

The court grants plaintiff’s unopposed request for judicial notice in its entirety.

Demurrer Standard

“A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” (Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) “It has been consistently held that ‘“a plaintiff is required only to set forth the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action”’” (Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn. Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099, cited with approval by Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.)

“'A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70). The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.'” (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; accord McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 72, 79.)

Defendant’s demurrer lies against the second, third, fourth, and seventh causes of action in plaintiff’s first amended complaint for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory fraud, fraudulent concealment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Specifically, defendant argues that the facts pled fail to state these four causes of action.

Third Cause of Action for Promissory Fraud

Fourth Cause of Action for Fraud by Concealment

“An action for promissory fraud may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a [written] contract. [Citations.] In such cases, the plaintiff’s claim does not depend upon whether the defendant’s promise is ultimately enforceable as a contract.” (Austin v. Medicis (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 577, 588).

As noted by defendant, to state a claim based on fraudulent omission or concealment, a plaintiff must allege that defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact, that defendant was under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, that defendant intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, that plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and that as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff sustained damage. (Jones v. ConocoPhilips (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1198; see also Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 162; Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 868.)

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint satisfies these elements. He alleges that defendant promised to honor the terms of the Jahlibyrd Membership Interest Agreement when, in fact, he had no intent of doing so. Plaintiff describes conversations with defendant and also his interactions with other individuals and business entities to show defendant’s intent to conceal the fact that he had no intention of honoring the agreement.

Plaintiff alleges that he justifiably relied on defendant’s representation that he would honor the agreement and that he would have pursued other opportunities had he been aware of defendant’s intentional concealment of fact. He further alleges that as a result of defendant’s fraud, he has suffered damages in the form of his ownership interest in Jahlibyrd.

The economic loss rule does not bar plaintiff’s fraud-related claims, which are independent of the alleged contract between the parties. In fact, while the Jahlibyrd Membership Interest Agreement may or may not be an enforceable contract, plaintiff’s promissory fraud claim does not depend on that determination (Austin, 21 Cal.App.5th at 588)). If conduct that might amount to a breach of contract violates a duty independent of the contract arising from principles of tort law,” that conduct also becomes tortious. (Applied Equipment v. Litton Saudi Arabia (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 515.)

In sum, plaintiff’s first amended complaint does establish the who, how, when, where, and what to state a cause of action for promissory fraud and fraud by concealment. Defendant’s demurrer to the third cause of action for promissory fraud and the fourth cause of action for fraud by concealment is overruled.

Second Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Seventh Cause of Action for Breach of Implied Fiduciary Duty Causes of Action

In every contract or agreement there is an implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. A cause of action for tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires the existence and breach of an enforceable contract as well as an independent tort. (See Kruse v. Bank of America (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 38, 57. Corporations Code section 17704.09 provides that members of a member-managed limited liability owe a duty of loyalty and care to each other.

Whether the Jahlibyrd Membership Interest Agreement is an enforceable contract or whether defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or breached his fiduciary duties are not issues for a demurrer, which only looks at whether plaintiff’s facts state this cause of action. Plaintiff’s facts do just that:

Mr. Anderson has flagrantly breached his fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to Jahlibyrd and to Mr. Findley in ways including, without limitation, the following: (a) failing to ensure that all of Jahlibyrd’s cannabis product inventory was acquired from growers, manufacturers and/or distributors that are properly licensed by all necessary regulatory agencies, (b) failing to notify the State of California Bureau of Cannabis Control that Mr. Findley is a “financial interest holder” of Jahlibyrd, as such term is defined in 16 CCR § 5004, (c) failing to adhere to limited liability company formalities and comingling Jahlibyrd’s assets and liabilities with the assets of other entities under common ownership with Mr. Anderson, (d) causing Jahlibyrd to improperly enter into transactions with other entities wholly-controlled by Mr. Anderson , including, without limitation, Mericratic Society, LLC, in which Jahlibyrd paid monies to such entities in transactions not supported by sufficient consideration (or, in some instances, any consideration whatsoever), (e) failing to pay workers employed as “trimmers” by Jahlibyrd, which led to the theft of Jahlibyrd’s finished cannabis product, (f) failing to cause Jahlibyrd to adhere to standard security protocols, which cause Jahlibyrd’s insurance claim relating to the theft of cannabis product to fail, and (e) failing to cause Jahlibyrd to deliver payroll or sales taxes collected by such entity to the applicable government agency.

(SAC, 15:26-16:12).

In sum, plaintiff’s first amended complaint states facts sufficient to constitute causes of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory fraud, fraud by concealment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant’s demurrer is overruled. Defendant is ordered to file an answer to the first amended complaint within ten days of the date of this order.

Motion to Strike

A motion to strike lies either (1) to strike any “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(a)); or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b)). As with demurrers, the grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack. Cal. C. Civ. Proc. § 437.

On a motion to strike, courts consider the complaint’s allegations in context and presumes them to be true: “[j]udges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (Pedus Services, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

A court may strike all or any portions of a complaint that are defective in that allegations contained in the complaint are without sufficient factual support to state a cause of action. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-83; see also Code of Civ. Proc. § 431.10 (immaterial allegations in a pleading such as “[a]n allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense” or “[a] demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint” are subject to a motion to strike).) Punitive damages not supported by the allegations are also properly stricken. (See Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041- 1042 (conclusory allegations and characterizations of defendant's conduct are “patently insufficient” to come “within the meaning of Section 3294 for punitive damages”).)

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint seeks punitive damages relating to the third cause of action for promissory fraud and the fourth cause of action for fraud by concealment. Defendant argues that those claims are derivative of plaintiff’s breach of contract claims and also that they have not been sufficiently pled. Therefore, defendant argues, the prayer for punitive damages arising out of those claims must be stricken.

Civil Code section 3294 allows for the recovery of punitive damages for conduct that constitutes fraud. The statute defines fraud as the “intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. C. § 3294(c)(3).)

As noted previously, to state a claim based on fraudulent omission or concealment, a plaintiff must allege that defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact, that defendant was under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, that defendant intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, that plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and that as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff sustained damage. (Jones, 198 Cal.App.4th at 1198; see also Hambrick, 238 Cal.App.4th at 162; Blickman Turkus, LP, 162 Cal.App.4th at 868.)

In sum, plaintiff’s first amended complaint does establish the who, how, when, where, and what to state a cause of action for promissory fraud and fraud by concealment. As such, a request for punitive damages is permissible. Defendant’s motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages is denied.

August 16, 2024 Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

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

Plaintiff’s July 30 2024 motion for an order for service of summons by publication is GRANTED. No appearance is required. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday August 20, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective August 16, 2024.

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50 (a) provides:

A summons may be served by publication if upon affidavit it appears

to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the

party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another

manner specified in this article and that either:

(1) A cause of action exists against the party upon whom service is to be made

or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action. (2) The party to be served

has or claims an interest in real or personal property in this state that is

subject to the jurisdiction of the court or the relief demanded in the

action consists wholly or in part in excluding the party from any interest

in the property.

Service by publication is the method of last resort. As the court noted in County of Riverside County v Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal App 4th 443, “If there is any situation in which strict compliance can be reasonably required, it is that of service by publication” (Id., at 450).

In this case, service by publication is proper. Plaintiff’s complaint establishes that causes of action for cancellation of a written instrument and to quiet title exist against defendant, and it also establishes that defendant claims an interest in property that is subject to the jurisdiction of the court and also that the relief demanded in the action consists wholly or in part in excluding defendant from any interest in the subject property.

The declarations supporting the motion satisfy the court that defendant cannot be served in any manner other than by publication. Plaintiff’s process server tried to serve defendant at his last known addresses in Florida, which were vacant buildings. Plaintiff’s private investigator located defendant in the Bahamas, but the investigator was unable to serve him because he was informed that defendant had returned to the United States. The process server was unsuccessful in serving defendant at his last known address in Florida.

Accordingly, it is ordered that: 1) the summons be served by publication in The Union a newspaper of general circulation published in Nevada County and that the publication be made once a week for four successive weeks; 2) the summons be served by publication in the Treasure Coast News and that the publication be made once a week for four successive weeks; 3) a copy of the summons, a copy of the complaint, and a copy of this order be forthwith emailed to defendant; and 4) a copy of the summons, a copy of the complaint, and a copy of this order be forthwith mailed to defendant if his address is ascertained before expiration of the time herein prescribed for publication of summons.

CU0001257 Barbara Cramer vs. Advanced Home Health and Hospice, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff’s May 24, 2024 motion for trial preference is GRANTED. Defendant’s May 21, 2024 demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Defendant’s May 21, 2024 motion to strike is GRANTED.

No appearance is required. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday August 20, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective August 16, 2024.

Motion for Preference

Code of Civil Procedure section 36 provides:

A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings:

(1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole.

(2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent

prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.

Code of Civil Procedure section 36.5 provides:

An affidavit submitted in support of a motion for preference under

subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the

party seeking preference based upon information and belief as to the

medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party. The affidavit is not

admissible for any purpose other than a motion for preference under

subdivision (a) of Section 36.

For example, in Fox v Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal App 5th 529, 531-536, a motion for preference was deemed appropriate where plaintiff’s attorney attached his client’s medical records to support his information and belief of his client’s diagnosis of stage IV lung cancer and the attorney provided specific facts to support his information and belief as to the course of his client’s prognosis, that is, the progression and likelihood of recovery in the face of ongoing chemotherapy.

At bar, there is no dispute that plaintiff is over seventy years of age. There is also no dispute that plaintiff has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. The issue is whether she has established that the state of her health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in this litigation.

The declaration signed by plaintiff’s attorney notes that Ms. Cramer is 91 years of age. It further notes:

The medical records further reflect that originally on January 17, 2023, Ms. Cramer suffered a fall fracturing her hip. After returning to her home following hipreplacement surgery on March 30, 2023, Ms. Cramer suffered a new traumatic hip injuryrequiring surgery as a result of the alleged negligent care of defendant's employee. I am informed and believe that the most recent traumatic injury has left Ms. Cramer with permanent residual medical problems, pain, and loss of mobility, strength and fatigue. Based upon her age, the two recent hip fractures, and two separate in patient surgeries I believe that Ms. Cramer would be prejudiced by her deteriorating medical condition, lack of stamina, fatigue, pain, mobility, concentration and overall ability to participate in this litigation if a preference were not granted in this case.

On this record, the court concludes that plaintiff has met her burden of establishing the need for trial preference.

The court is cognizant of defendant’s due process concerns. Section 36, however, is mandatory, even in light of strong countervailing considerations including due process rights of other litigants. Notes the court of appeal:

[S]ection 36 is mandatory, leaving ... no discretion to the court. [Citation omitted].

“Thus, relevant precedent upholds the absolute command of section 36(a) in light of its plain meaning, despite recognition that in certain instances there are strong countervailing considerations—deriving from principles of efficient trial court management; from fairness and due process to other litigants; and from divergent public policy or statutory contexts in which the section 36(a) mandate may be difficult, impractical, or impossible to realize. [R]elevant precedent … holds section 36(a) is a comprehensive and final legislative judgment on the issue, which must prevail whenever the section 36(a) right is juxtaposed to another countervailing argument, based on whatever legitimate or seemingly compelling public interest.” [Citation omitted.]

(Pabla v. Superior Court of Merced County (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 599, 604, fn. 5.)

The court, as necessary, can set an expedited briefing schedule for pre-trial motions requested by the parties.

Demurrer

Meet and Confer Requirement

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires the parties to meet and confer before a demurrer is filed to determine if they can resolve the objections raised in the demurrer. As part of the process, each party is to provide legal support for their positions. The demurring party must submit a declaration describing the meet and confer process.

The declaration of defendant’s attorney asserts that the parties met and conferred but reached an impasse as to whether the Elder Abuse Act applies to the facts of this case. While the declaration does not lay out each party’s legal position, it does note that the attorneys discussed the “relevant authorities.” The declaration suffices.

Standard for Motion

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.30 (a) provides in pertinent part: “When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading.”

A demurrer may be against the complaint in its entirety or against any of the causes of action alleged therein. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 430.50). It must “distinctly specify” the grounds upon which the demurrer is brought. (See id., § 430.60).

Defendant demurs to the first cause of action of plaintiff’s complaint, which alleges neglect of an elder under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600 et seq. The demurrer argues that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 430.010(e)).

A general demurrer for failure to state a cause of action may be sustained only if the complaint fails to state a cause of action under “any possible legal theory.” (Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (2009) 45 Cal 4th 992, 998). If the “essential facts of some valid cause of action are alleged, the complaint is good against a general demurrer.” (Quelimane Co., Inc. v Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal 4th 26, 38-39).

Analysis

Defendant correctly argues that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for neglect of an elder under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600 et seq. The court of appeal in Worsham v O’Connor Hospital (2014) 226 Cal App 4th 331, notes:

"The Elder Abuse Act does not apply to simple or gross negligence by health care providers. To obtain the enhanced remedies of section 15657, “a plaintiff must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is guilty of something more than negligence; he or she must show reckless, oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct.” “ ‘Recklessness’ refers to a subjective state of culpability greater than simple negligence, which has been described as a ‘deliberate disregard’ of the ‘high degree of probability’ that an injury will occur [citations]. Recklessness, unlike negligence, involves more than ‘inadvertence, incompetence, unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions’ but rather rises to the level of a ‘conscious choice of a course of action ... with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it.’”

(Id. at 336–337, citations omitted).

In this case, plaintiff alleges that defendant’s physical therapist instructed her to perform an exercise that turned out to be unsafe for her. At most, this allegation describes negligence, not neglect, by a health care professional. Plaintiff asserts that the conduct was reckless but does not allege facts to support this conclusory allegation.

Defendant also correctly contends that there was no custodial or substantial care relationship which can support a cause of action for elder abuse.

Our high court [has] concluded that “the Act does not apply unless the defendant health care provider had a substantial caretaking or custodial relationship, involving ongoing responsibility for one or more basic needs, with the elder patient. It is the nature of the elder or dependent adult's relationship with the defendant—not the defendant's professional standing—that makes the defendant potentially liable for neglect.” ([Winn v. Pioneer Medical Group, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 148,] 152 [].) In construing section 15610.57, which defines neglect and sets forth a nonexhaustive list of examples, our high court emphasized that most of the examples “seem to contemplate ... the existence of a robust caretaking or custodial relationship—that is, a relationship where a certain party has assumed a significant measure of responsibility for attending to one or more of an elder's basic needs that an able-bodied and fully competent adult would ordinarily be capable of managing without assistance.” (Winn, at pp. 157–158 [].)

(Kruthanooch v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1109, 1124, parallel citations omitted).

Here, plaintiff has failed to set forth facts to establish a caretaking or custodial relationship between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff alleges that she was recovering from a fractured right hip and was instructed to engage in an unsafe fall recovery exercise which resulted in a refracture of her right hip. Beyond the assertion that defendant provided plaintiff with physical therapy including instructions related to a fall recovery exercise, “plaintiff[] offer[s] no other explanation for why defendant[‘s] … outpatient medical treatment forged a caretaking or custodial relationship between [plaintiff] and defendant[]. No allegations in the complaint support an inference that [plaintiff]relied on defendant[] in any way distinct from an able-bodied and fully competent adult's reliance on the advice and care of his or her medical providers.” (Winn, 63 Cal.4th at 165). As such, defendant “lacked the needed caretaking or custodial relationship with the [plaintiff].” (Ibid.).

In sum, the demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained.

“Leave to amend must be granted if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 69). Plaintiff does not request leave to amend and has made no showing how the defect can reasonably be cured. On this record, leave to amend is denied.

Motion to Strike

Meet and Confer Requirement

Again, Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 requires the parties to meet and confer before a motion to strike is filed to determine if they can resolve the objections raised in the demurrer.

The declaration of defendant’s attorney asserts that the parties met and conferred but reached an impasse as to whether the Elder Abuse Act applies to the facts of this case. The declaration is identical to the declaration attached to the demurrer. Although it does not address meet and confer efforts specifically as to the request for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, the issue would necessarily be addressed in connection with the demurrer. Thus, the declaration suffices.

Standard for Motion

Code of Civil Procedure section 436(a) allows a court to strike out any “improper matter inserted in any pleading”. The grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the challenged pleading. (See Code Civ. Proc. §437).

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages and attorney’s fees based on her allegations of elder neglect. While such damages/fees are recoverable under the Elder Abuse Act, the court has determined that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for neglect of an elder. Therefore, the prayer for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees must be stricken.

Moreover, plaintiff’s complaint is one for negligence against a health care provider. As such, she cannot seek punitive damages absent a court order allowing an amended complaint that includes a claim for punitive damages. (See Code Civ. Proc. §425.13).

Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of defendant’s employee was reckless. Not only is the allegation made with no supporting facts, but the allegations that are set forth do not constitute recklessness. As the Supreme Court noted in Delaney v Baker (1999) 20 Cal 4th 23:

"Recklessness, unlike negligence, involves more than ‘inadvertence, incompetence, unskillfulness, or a failure to take precautions' but rather rises to the level of a ‘conscious choice of a course of action ... with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it.’"

(Id. at 31–32.)

Defendant’s motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages is granted; specifically, the complaint at 8:4-7 is stricken. Defendant’s motion to strike the prayer for attorney’s fees is granted; specifically, the portion of the complaint at 8:1-3.

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

Air Vent, Inc. (AVI)’s motion to compel Powermax Electric Co.’s (Powermax) further supplemental response to demand for production of documents, set three, is DENIED. AVI’s motion to compel Powermax’s further supplemental responses to special interrogatories, set three, is DENIED. No appearance is required. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, August 20, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective August 16, 2024.

AVI’s motion to compel further deposition testimony of Powermax’s person most knowledgeable and AVI’s motion for a protective order regarding further deposition testimony of Powermax’s person most knowledgeable are CONTINUED to August 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

AVI’s Motion to Compel Powermax’s Further Supplemental Response to Demand for Production of Documents, Set Three

Before it can file a motion to compel further discovery responses, a party is required to make a reasonable and good faith effort to informally resolve the dispute. To that end, a motion to compel further response to a demand for production must be accompanied by a declaration that establishes that the moving party made that effort. (See Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(2)).

The purpose of this meet and confer requirement is to “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order....” (Stewart v Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal App 4th 1006, 1016). “This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Ibid.).

The meet and confer effort must be made before the motion is filed. (See Code Civ. Proc. §2016.040). Failure to meet and confer is a misuse of the discovery process and may be grounds for monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010(i); 2023.020).

AVI did meet and confer before filing its original motion to compel, and it also met and conferred regarding the responses it received from Powermax, albeit after AVI had already filed its motion to compel. Specifically, on May 8, 2024, and again on June 5, 2024, AVI requested that Powermax provide further responses, which Powermax did on June 14, 2024.

If AVI was not satisfied with Powermax’ supplemental response to its demand for production of documents, it was incumbent on it to meet and confer regarding the supplemental responses. Its prior meet and confer efforts as to the sufficiency of Powermax’ previously served response does not fulfill AVI’s obligation to do the same before filing the instant motion.

AVI’s motion to compel Powermax’ further supplemental response to demand for production of documents, set three, is denied without prejudice. Its motion for monetary sanctions is also denied.

The parties shall meet and confer regarding Powermax’ supplemental responses to the following document demands: Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49. The meet and confer process shall be by telephone call, video conference, or face-to-face meeting. If the issues cannot be resolved informally, AVI may re-file its motion, which shall include the required declaration outlining its meet and confer efforts.

AVI’s Motion to Compel Powermax’s Further Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Three

Before it can file a motion to compel further discovery responses, a party is required to make a reasonable and good faith effort to informally resolve the dispute. To that end, a motion to compel further interrogatory answers must be accompanied by a declaration that establishes that the moving party made that effort. (See Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300(b)(1)).

As noted before, the purpose of this meet and confer requirement is to “to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order...” (Stewart, 87 Cal App 4th at 1016). The meet and confer effort must be made before the motion is filed. (See Code Civ. Proc. §2016.040).

If AVI was not satisfied with Powermax’ supplemental special interrogatory answers, it was required to meet and confer regarding the supplemental responses. Its prior meet and confer efforts as to the sufficiency of Powermax’ previously served special interrogatory answers did not fulfill AVI’s obligation to do the same before filing the instant motion.

AVI’s motion to compel Powermax’ further supplemental responses to special interrogatories, set three, is denied. Its motion for monetary sanctions is also denied.

The parties shall meet and confer regarding Powermax’ supplemental responses to the following special interrogatories: Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36. The meet and confer process shall be by telephone call, video conference, or face-to-face meeting. If the issues cannot be resolved informally, AVI may seek further relief as permitted by law.

AVI’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony of Powermax’s Person Most Knowledgeable

On the court’s own motion, this motion is continued to August 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6, to be heard with AVI’s motion for protective order and Powermax’s motion for protective order regarding this deposition.

AVI’s Motion to Protective Order Regarding Further Deposition Testimony of Powermax’s Person Most Knowledgeable

On the court’s own motion, this motion is continued to August 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6, to be heard with AVI’s motion for further deposition testimony and Powermax’s motion for protective order regarding this deposition.

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

November 1, 2024 Dept. 6 Probate Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. PR0000367 In the Matter of Leilani Asonia Hollingshead

Appearances are required. Petitioner, executor of decedent’s will, has filed a petition for instructions, which is opposed by petitioner’s brother, one of the beneficiaries of decedent’s will. The parties shall be prepared to identify the order for resolution of issues, which issues will require presentation of evidence and appropriate hearing/trial dates.

2. PR0000608 In the Matter of Janet S. Peters

The petition for order confirming trust assets and directing transfer of trust property is GRANTED as prayed.

3. PR0000609 In the Matter of Valarie Jean Brenner

The petition for authorization to administer the estate is GRANTED as prayed.

4. PR0000631 In the Matter of William Edward Corwin

The petition for letters of administration and for authorization to administer under the Independent Administration of Estates Act is GRANTED as prayed.

5. P19-16610 In the Matter of Anella M. Villani

6. P19-16611 In the Matter of Alexander D. Villani

7. P19-16612 In the Matter of Charlies P. Villani

On its own motion, the court continues the hearing on the third account and report of guardian and petition to November 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Counsel shall clarify whether he is seeking fees of $1,000 for the -610 and -612 matters or just $800.00 (consistent with the invoices attached to the petition).

On its own motion, the court continues the hearing on the petition for transfer of personal property to November 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner shall submit a declaration prior to the continued hearing with the following information as required by Probate Code section 2803:

b) The ages of the relatives of the ward within the second degree, if known to petitioner. Petitioner is the mother of the three minors and would know their ages.

(e) A statement of the manner in which and by whom the foreign guardian or conservator was appointed. Petitioner provided a certificate of appointment, but it does not specify the manner or by whom that appointment was made.

(j) Whether there is any pending civil action in this state against the guardian or conservator, the ward or conservatee, or the estate.

8. P22-17041 In the Matter of Karen Williams

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the first and final report and account of personal representative and petition for its settlement, for allowance of statutory compensation to personal representative and counsel for personal representative, to withhold, for costs and for final distribution is continued to November 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner shall file the updated inventory and appraisal and assignments referenced in the petition prior to the continued hearing date. Petitioner shall also explain the basis for calculating the various fractional distributions. Petitioner shall file notice of the continued hearing.

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

The petition for appointment of temporary probate conservator is GRANTED as prayed.

October 25, 2024 Dept. 6 Probate Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. PR0000446 In the Matter of Evelyn Hughes Anderson

No appearances is required. The first and final report and account of administrator with will annexed, and petition for its settlement; allowance for statutory compensation to administrator and attorneys, reimbursement for costs advanced by administrator and attorneys and for final distribution are granted. In its proposed order, petitioner shall include the description of the distributions as set forth in the decedent’s will. See Will ¶ Third (a), (b), (c).

2. PR0000580 In the Matter of Christopher Levas

Appearances are required. Petitioner, trust beneficiary Christopher Levas has filed a petition against trustee Loretta Levas-Taylor (his sister) for fraud, breach of trust, to compel an accounting and to recover attorney’s fees and costs. Trustee filed an accounting and otherwise denies the petition. Petitioner objects to the accounting. The parties shall be prepared to identify the order for resolution of issues, which issues will require presentation of evidence and appropriate hearing/trial dates.

3. PR0000581 In the Matter of Janet Mehr

No appearance is required. The unopposed petition to invalidate trust and alternative petition to determine claims to property are granted.

In Anderson v Hunt (2011) 196 Cal App 4th 722, trust beneficiaries sought to invalidate trust amendments, arguing that the trustee lacked the mental capacity to make the amendments. The issue was whether the trustee’s capacity should be evaluated under the standard of contractual capacity as defined by Probate section 810 or under the standard of testamentary capacity as defined by Probate section 6100.5. The court ruled in favor of the latter:

When determining whether a trustor had capacity to execute a trust

amendment that, in its content and complexity, closely resembles a

will or codicil, we believe it is appropriate to look to [Probate Code]

section 6100.5 to determine when a person's mental deficits are

sufficient to allow a court to conclude that the person lacks the ability

"to understand and appreciate the consequences of his or her actions with regard to the

type of act or decision in question." ([Prob. Code] § 811, subd. (b).) In other words, while

section 6100.5 is not directly applicable to determine competency

to make or amend a trust, it is made applicable through section 811 to

trusts or trust amendments that are analogous to wills or codicils.

Id. at 731.

In this case, a trustee’s creation of an irrevocable trust and transfer of property from the trustee’s revocable trust to the irrevocable trust is analogous to an individual who changes a will to change distributions of estate assets. The standard to determine petitioner’s capacity falls under the purview of Probate Code section 6100.5, which provides:

An individual is not mentally competent to make a will if at the

time of making the will, … the following is true:

The individual does not have sufficient mental capacity to

be able to (A) understand the nature of the testamentary act,

(B) understand and recollect the nature and situation of the

individual's property, or (C) remember and understand the

individual's relations to living descendants, spouse, and

parents, and those whose interests are affected by the will.

Probate Code Section 850(a)(3)(B) allows a trustee to petition the court “[w]here the trustee has a claim to real or personal property, title to or possession of which is held by another.” Upon a sufficient factual showing that the transfer should be made, Probate Code Section 856 allows the court to direct the person in possession of the property to transfer it back to the person entitled to possession.

The facts set forth in the verified petition establish that petitioner did not have sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the irrevocable trust set up by her daughter. Petitioner states that she did not know the difference between a revocable and irrevocable trust and that her daughter and lawyer retained by her daughter did not explain the implications of setting up the irrevocable trust. She also states that she was suffering from medical conditions for which she was taking medications that affected her ability to understand the consequence of her signing the irrevocable trust.

The facts set forth in the verified petition also establish that petitioner signed the irrevocable trust because of her daughter’s undue influence, defined as “excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity.” Probate Code §86; Welfare and Institutions Code §15610.30. In determining whether a transfer was the product of undue influence, courts look at the “vulnerability of the victim, the influencer’s apparent authority, the actions or tactics used by the influencer, and the equity of the result.” Id.

Petitioner, suffering medical conditions and under the influence of medications that clouded her judgment, was vulnerable to her daughter’s influence. Her daughter took away any control and authority that petitioner had, hiding paper statements, not explaining her actions, and using her lawyer to represent petitioner without obtaining a conflict waiver. The result was overwhelmingly inequitable to petitioner, who had no access to the transferred assets, which were not to be used for her benefit, and who was not a beneficiary of the irrevocable trust. Her daughter not only exercised undue influence but arguably committed elder abuse.

The irrevocable trust is void. The current trustee shall not use or distribute any funds in that trust but shall file an accounting of all assets that were transferred to the irrevocable trust from petitioner’s revocable trust. The accounting shall include bank statements, receipts, and any other documentation of transfers. The current trustee is ordered to return to petitioner all funds that were taken from her revocable trust. A review hearing is set for November 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

4. PR0000597 In the Matter of Joshua Christian Camberlan Special Needs Trust #2

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the petition to confirm appointment of trustee, determine bond, determine construction of trust, instructions, and modification is continued to November 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

5. P01-13297 In the Matter of Rhiannon Michelle Richardson

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 October 23, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

6. P04-13975 In the Matter of Curtis McKinley Banks

7. P08-14720 In the Matter of Jennifer M. Andes

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 September 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

8. P09-14856 In the Matter of Debbie A. Windus

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the conservatorship is terminated. The court investigator informs the court that the conservatee passed away in October 2023.

9. P15-15819 In the Matter of Sasha Eugenia Archer

10. PR0000451 In the Matter of Carolee Taylor

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the petition for authority to sell conservatee’s residence is continued to November 15, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. Petitioner shall submit a declaration to establish that the sale of conservatee’s residence would not cause a detrimental tax or governmental benefits consequence that would render the sale to not be in the conservatee’s best interest.

11. PR0000353 In the Matter of Sylvia De Mieur

No appearance is required. The first account and report of conservator of the person and estate and petition for fees for conservator and her attorney are granted as prayed. Further accountings need not be filed.

12. PR0000357 In the Matter of John Watson

No appearance is required. The first account and report of conservator of the person and estate and petition for fees for conservator and her attorney are granted as prayed.

13. PR0000625 In the Matter of Lily Jean Steel

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the petition for guardianship is continued to November 15, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner answered Yes to Questions 3 and 10 but did not include an explanation. Petitioner shall file a declaration providing the details requested in Items 3 and 10 of the petition at least one week before the continued hearing.

14. PR0000354 In the Matter of The Warren H. Mayberry Trust

No appearances are required. The court appreciates the comprehensive briefing of the parties.

The respondent notes, “[T]here is a risk that the Trust will not have sufficient assets to support both the Petitioner’s specific gift and the Scholarship Fund.” Respondent Brief, 9: 3-6. Respondent shall submit a supplemental brief of no more than two pages that details, as best as possible, the current assets and liabilities of the trust and why he believes such a risk exists. The submission shall be due no later than November 15, 2024. Petitioner may, as his option, file an optional reply of no more than two pages no later than December 6, 2024.

The petitioner notes: “Under the rules of intestate succession, only those persons identified as immediate successors to the decedent’s estate constitute “heirs.” Hernandez v. Kieferle (2011) 200 Cal. App.4th 419, 437. Although the rules specify sequences of persons and groups potentially eligible to share in the decedent's estate, no individual is ordinarily a proper “heir” unless the persons placed ahead of the individual under the rules cannot succeed to the estate. Mayo v. White (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1083, 1088.” Petitioner’s Brief, 8:3-7. The court is cognizant of petitioner’s argument that he is the sole heir in the technical sense. Petitioner is directed to submit a supplemental brief of no more than three pages that describes all sequences of known persons and groups potentially eligible to share in decedent’s estate (specifically the scholarship fund) per the rules of intestacy, in order of eligibility and with specific designation of the name of the individual, relationship to defendant and age, if known. The submission shall be due no later than November 15, 2024. Respondent shall file his position regarding the same, indicating concurrence with the petitioner or otherwise, of no more than three pages, by no later than December 6, 2024.

On the court’s motion, ruling is continued until December 20, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

October 18, 2024 Dept. 6 Probate Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. P08-14779 In the Matter of Neill Phillips

No appearance is required. Petition to appoint co-trustees is granted as prayed.

If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, October 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective October 18, 2024.

2. PR0000578 In the Matter of Siwaporn Carmans

No appearance is required. The petition to confirm validity of trust and trust amendment, confirm successor trustee and beneficiary, and confirm assets to the trust is granted as prayed.

3. PR0000607 In the Matter of Steven MacDonald Trust

No appearance is required. The petition to confirm validity of trust was previously granted on June 21, 2024. The petition to confirm validity of trust assets, specifically, the property at 34 Wilcutt Draw Lane, Paradise, MT, is granted as prayed.

4. P06-14357 In the Matter of Jenny Lynn Jensen

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 October 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

The conservators have requested that their son and conservatee’s brother, Justin Jensen, be designated as co-conservator. Mr. Jensen will have to file a petition for conservatorship if that is his desire.

5. P14-15643 In the Matter of Christopher Joshua Howie

No appearance required. On the court’s own motion, the review hearing is continued to November 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court has not yet received an updated report from Alta Regional Center regarding the current status of the conservatee. The conservatorship shall remain in effect.

6. P79-08918 In the Matter of Vincent M. Parks

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the petition for accounting and order to show cause regarding the June 21, 2024 absence of conservator are continued to November 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner shall ensure that Schedules A-E referenced in the original petition are filed at least one week before the continued hearing. Petitioner is reminded that the court previously ordered that those exhibits be provided.

7. PR0000521 In the Matter of Earlene Tankersley

No appearance is required. The first account and report of conservator of the person and estate and petition for fees for conservator and her attorney are granted as prayed. (The second and final account and report of conservator of the person and estate and petition for fees for conservator and her attorney was previously granted as prayed.)

8. P98-12696 In the Matter of Guy Dustin Forcum

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the biennial review hearing is continued to November 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to give the court investigator additional time to file the investigator and confidential medical information reports. The conservatorship shall remain in effect.

October 11, 2024 Dept. 6 Probate Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. P14-15680 In the Matter of Ronald D’Arata Irrevocable Trust, et al.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the petition to administer estate is continued to November 8, 2024. Petitioner shall file a properly signed and dated proof of service.

2. PR0000442 In the Matter of R. Bramley Palm, Jr.

Appearance is required to discuss discovery cutoff, hearing and trial date setting. The court appreciates the parties’ thoughtful briefs regarding same.

3. PR0000594 In the Matter of Martin Aaron Harmon

The petition for letters of administration and for authorization to administer the estate is granted as prayed. The court notes that petitioner’s letters of administration and order were rejected by the clerk for failure to file them electronically. Petitioner shall re-submit those documents.

4. PR0000605 In the Matter of Inesis Janis Alberts Day

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the petition to administer estate is continued to November 15, 2024. Petitioner shall file proof of publication at least one week before the continued hearing.

5. PR0000613 In the Matter of Susanna Laureyssen

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the petition to administer estate is continued to November 8, 2024. Petitioner shall file Duties and Liabilities of Personal Representative at least one week before the continued hearing.

The court notes that the petition was not served on Kamele Crabtree, named as successor trustee of decedent’s trust. The petition and notice of continued hearing shall be served on that individual.

6. PR0000616 In the Matter of Allison G. Sprader

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the petition to appoint conservator of estate is continued to November 15, 2024. Petitioner shall file proof of service of the petition on Barry Pruett, assigned counsel for the proposed conservatee.

7. PR0000622 Estate of Mary Josephine Tisza aka Mary B. Tisza

The petition for authorization to administer the estate is granted as prayed.

8. PR0000623 In the Matter of Susan Lesley Vega

9. P05-14125 In the Matter of Laura F. Goetz

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 October 9, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

10. P06-14278 In the Matter of Rory Nelson

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the biennial review is continued to November 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The conservator shall personally appear at the continued review hearing to address the court investigator’s concerns about the impact of her vision impairment on her ability to continue her duties as conservator. Conservatorship shall continue.

11. P11-15158 In the Matter of Caleb Kirksey

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 October 9, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

12. PR0000250 In the Matter of Clayton T. Jackson

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the annual review hearing is continued to November 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. If the conservator wishes to have expanded powers as conservator, he will need to file a petition seeking same. Conservatorship shall continue.

13. P09-14943 In the Matter of Sean Krulisky

Appearance is required. Conservator Vincent Krulisky is to explain to the court his failure to appear at the July 19, 2024 biennial review hearing and the August 30, 2024 order to show cause hearing. Conservator Annette Leinhart is to explain to the court her failure to appear at the July 19, 2024 review hearing and the status of the conservatee’s relocation, which was done without permission of this court.

14. P11-15177 In the Matter of Phillip Krulisky

Appearance is required. Conservator Vincent Krulisky is to explain to the court his failure to appear at the July 19, 2024 biennial review hearing and the August 30, 2024 order to show cause hearing. Conservator Annette Leinhart is to explain to the court her failure to appear at the July 19, 2024 review hearing. Phillip Krulisky is to explain to the court his failure to appear at the July 19, 2024 review hearing and also be prepared to discuss the necessity for continuing the conservatorship.

15. PR0000440 In the Matter of Katherine Rupert Kinaman

Appearance is required for this order to show case hearing. Katherine Rupert Kinaman shall show cause why the motion to continue trial filed by Geneve Rupert, a non-attorney, should not be stricken.

16. P97-12637 In the Matter of Melinda I. Wilson

Appearance is required. The parties shall update the court on the status of Ms. Kirby’s petition to be removed as conservator and the status of the Public Guardian’s petition to take over as conservator. Ms. Kirby shall be prepared to respond to the concerns raised in the latest court investigator report.

17. P05-14145 In the Matter of Jennifer Lee Arvisais

The third account and report of Public Guardian, trustee of special needs trust, and petition for fees for trustee and her attorney is granted as prayed.

October 4, 2024 Dept. 6 Probate Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. P06-14336 In the Matter of Sarah Mary Theresa Dunigan

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 October 2, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

2. P10-15066 In the Matter of Amy Mary Jean Dunigan

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the conservatorship is terminated due to the death of the conservatee.

3. P10-15068 In the Matter of Michael Andrew James Dunigan

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 October 2, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

4. P21-16891 In the Matter of Stephanie Hernandez Garcia

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 October 2, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

5. P15-15875 In the Matter of Sharon Beatty

Appearance is required. The parties shall inform the court of the status of settlement on this matter.

6. P89-10877 In the Matter of Thomas Michael Odom

Appearance is required. Conservator shall update the court regarding the status of efforts to transfer the conservatee to a higher level of care. An accounting shall be filed no later than February 28, 2025 and set for hearing in early April 2025.

7. PR0000555 In the Matter of Megan R. Jaime

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the petition to confirm trust assets is continued to November 8, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to set a trial date and any other required scheduling. The objections filed on September 13, 2024 by Marilyn Steiner and Rosemarie Johnston and the declaration of Janis Burris were not served on all parties interested in the estate. Proofs of service shall be filed at least fifteen days before the continued hearing date.

8. PR0000353 In the Matter of Sylvia DeMiur

Appearance is required. Conservator shall update the court regarding her discussions with the skilled nursing facility about the conservatee’s declining condition.

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. Conservatorship and neurocognitive powers are to continue. The next biennial review is set for September 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this first annual review shall be paid from the estate. A second account shall be filed no later than September 30, 2025 and set for hearing in early November 2025.

9. PR0000357 In the Matter of John Watson

No appearance is required. Conservatorship and neurocognitive powers are 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 October 2, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this first annual review shall be paid from the estate. A second account shall be filed no later than September 30, 2025 and set for hearing in early November 2025.

10. PR0000360 In the Matter of Spencer Logan Edward Morris

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the first account of guardians and petition for its settlement is continued to November 15, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court orders the court investigator to submit an updated report on or before November 4, 2024. Guardianship is to continue.

11. PR0000439 Estate of Kathleen Alexander

No appearance is required.

Trustee was previously ordered to submit an accounting regarding the trust. The court has reviewed the final report of a personal representative and petition for final distribution submitted by the trustee on August 8, 2024 (as well as the previous report filed on June 17, 2024), apparently intended to serve as an accounting. These reports are not for purposes of a trust accounting and are inadequate.

Even if the court construes the August submission as an accounting, it does not comply with all of the requirements of Probate Code section 16063(a), specified in the court’s order of August 2, 2024.

Probate Code section 16063(a) specifies that an account to trust beneficiaries must contain the following:

A statement of the receipts and disbursements of principal and income that have occurred during the last complete fiscal year of the trust or since the last account.
A statement of the trust’s assets and liabilities as of the end of the last complete fiscal year of the trust or as of the end of the period covered by the account.
The trustee’s compensation for the last complete fiscal year of the trust or since the last account.
The agents hired by the trustee, their relationship to the trustee, if any, and their compensation for the last complete fiscal year of the trust or since the last account.
A statement that the recipient of the account may petition the court under Probate Code §17200 to obtain court review of the account and the trustee’s acts.
A statement that claims against the trustee for breach of trust may not be made after the expiration of 3 years from the date the beneficiary receives an account or

In addition, Cal. Rule of Court 7.902 requires the account to state the names and last-known addresses of all vested or contingent beneficiaries (except for those who need not be given notice under Probate Code section15804).

The following remains missing from the August 8 submission:

A statement of the trust’s liabilities as of the end of the last complete fiscal year of the trust or as of the end of the period covered by the account.
A statement that the recipient of the account may petition the court under Probate Code §17200 to obtain court review of the account and the trustee’s acts.
A statement that claims against the trustee for breach of trust may not be made after the expiration of 3 years from the date the beneficiary receives an account or report disclosing facts giving rise to the claim.
The names and last-known addresses of all vested or contingent beneficiaries (except for those who need not be given notice under Probate Code section 15804).

In addition, the Summary of Account identifies Schedules A, B, and D, but these are not attached to the accounting.

Moreover, the inventory and appraisal filed on July 17, 2024 appraises the estate property at $465,550, but the submission states that the appraised value is $464,550.

The court does not approve either the June 17 or August 7 documents.

The trustee is ordered to file an appropriate accounting compliant with the requirements of law no later than November 3, 2024, set for hearing on December 12, 2024, 09:00. The trustee may wish to seek the assistance of counsel or some other legal professional in connection with this task. The trustee may also consult the public law center for resources in connection with this task.

12. PR0000602 In the Matter of William Mack Wittman

The petition to determine succession to real property is granted as prayed. Petitioner shall submit a proposed order in accordance with the requirements of Probate Code section 13154.

13. P22-17005 In the Matter of Steven Bullis

The report and petition for final distribution, waiver of account, waiver of statutory administrator fees, and request for statutory attorney’s fees are granted as prayed. Petitioner shall submit a formal order 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.

September 20, 2024 Dept. 6 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. PR0000367 In the Matter of Leilani Asonia Hollingshead

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing regarding the petition for instructions is continued to October 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The Franchise Tax Board, which filed a request for special notice, was not served with respondent’s opposition to the petition. Respondent shall timely serve his opposition to the Franchise Tax Board.

2. PR0000581 In the Matter of Janet Mehr

No appearance is required. On its own motion, the hearing regarding the petition to determine claims to property or, alternatively, to invalidate trust is continued to October 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner shall advise the court by declaration if there are any individuals associated with Deborah Pepe or her estate which are entitled to notice of this petition. Petitioner shall also file an appropriate declaration that includes the revocable trust of July 6, 2007.

3. PR0000588 In the Matter of Richard Kent White

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing regarding the petitions for letters of administration and special administration is continued to October 11, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

4. PR0000595 In the Matter of William Aaron Burnes

No appearance is required. The petition to administer the estate is granted as prayed. A status conference is set for September 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

5. PR0000598 Estate of Helen James McDonald

No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the petition to administer estate to November 15, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The petition references a trust but does not include it with the petition. Without it, the court cannot determine if all parties interested in the estate have been served with the petition. Petitioner shall file a declaration attaching the trust by October 15, 2024.

By October 15, 2024, petitioner shall file and serve a declaration listing estate property that presently has been distributed or received by any beneficiaries.

6. PR0000600 In the Matter of Sean Adam Egan

No appearance is required. The petition for order determining title to real property is granted as prayed.

7. PR0000604 In the Matter of Liam Lerski

Appearance is required by Rules of Court, Rule 7.952. Petitioner shall address the minor’s current condition and future medical needs, including counseling and the recommended orthopedic follow-up, if any.

Petitioner is to clarify the information in Paragraph 12a of the petition.

8. P15-15829 In the Matter of Breanna S. Martin

Conservatorship 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 September 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

9. P20-16779 In the Matter of Garwood Judd

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 August 28, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court investigation fee shall be paid from the estate.

10. P21-16877 In the Matter of Ian Franklin Jay

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 September 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

11. P12-15334 In the Matter of Helen Powell

No appearance is required. The petition for successor conservator is granted as prayed. Sandra Smith is relieved of her appointment as conservator. The court thanks Ms. Smith for her service as a conservator to care for the needs of Ms. Powell. A first annual review hearing is set for September 25, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

12. P07-14542 In the Matter of Michael A. Powers

No appearance is required. The fifteenth account and report of trustee is granted as prayed. A hearing regarding the sixteenth account is set for April 18, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. The account shall be filed and served no later than March 15, 2025.

13. PR0000330 In the Matter of Virginia Engel Morin

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 September 18, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court investigation fee shall be paid from the estate.

14. PR0000344 In the Matter of Michael Wayne Roberts

Appearances are required to confirm trial readiness for October 1, 2024.

September 13, 2024 Dept. 6 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. PR0000442 In the Matter of R. Bramley Palm

Appearances are required for trial setting on (1) the petition of petitioner Rohde to approve a first account; construe the trust instrument; and for instructions regarding distribution and (2) the first amended petition of petitioner Palm for removal; to invalidate donative transfer based on undue influence; and for damages for elder abuse against respondent Rohde as trustee and as an individual. Each party has objected to the other party’s petition.

2. PR0000578 In the Matter of Siwaporn Carmans

An appearance is required in connection with the petition to confirm validity of trust and trust amendment, to confirm successor trustee, to confirm beneficiary, and to confirm assets to trust. Are there any living issue of the decedent? If so, why have the issue not been given notice of the instant petition?

3. PR0000580 In the Matter of Christopher Levas

No appearance is required. The petition to compel an accounting is granted. No objection has been filed by respondent. Respondent shall file and serve an accounting of her administration of decedent’s trust for the period of January 1, 2019 to August 1, 2024 on or before October 21, 2024. A hearing regarding the same is set for November 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

The petition for breach of trust, for fraud, for attorneys’ fees and costs, and for punitive and exemplary damages is continued to October 11, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

4. P21-16983 In the Matter of The Jacobson Family Trust

No appearances are required. The court has reviewed the parties’ updated status report and appreciates their ongoing efforts to meet and confer to resolve the matter.

The review hearing is continued to January 10, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The parties shall submit an updated joint status report no later than ten days before the review hearing date, including their meet and confer efforts as to petitioner’s objections to respondent’s second amended first account, as well as to the pre-death accounting prepared by petitioner.

5. PR0000053 In the Matter of Mildred Kitchen

This tentative is issued by Judge Picquet. Appearances are required to set a trial readiness conference.

6. P08-14720 In the Matter of Jennifer Andes

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the biennial review hearing is continued to October 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court investigator shall submit an updated biennial report by October 11, 2024. The conservatorship remains in in full force and effect.

7. TP00-0207 In the Matter of Bhima Carney

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 September 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court investigator assessment fee is waived.

8. P12-15410 In the Matter of Michol Stephenson

No appearance is required. Conservatorship 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 September 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court investigator assessment fee is waived.

9. P79-08918 In the Matter of Vincent Parks

Appearances are not required. The petition for accounting and order to show cause regarding the June 21, 2024 absence of conservator are continued to October 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Conservator/petitioner shall ensure that the original August 6, 2024 petition and the August 29, 2024 response to probate notes with attached account/exhibits have been or are served on all interested parties with appropriate filed proofs of service.

September 6, 2024 Dept. 6 Probate Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

1. P14-15659 In the Matter of James Peterson, et al.

The petition for final distribution is continued on the court’s motion until October 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) claim was for $843.53. The August 9, 2024, attachment to petitioner’s “Satisfaction of Creditor’s Claim Franchise Tax Board” includes a canceled check for $664.46 but there is no indication from the FTB that they have accepted that as full satisfaction of its claim. Proof of the same shall be provided in advance of the next hearing.

If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective September 6, 2024.

2. PR0000378 In the Matter of Donna M. Vadney

No appearances are required. The court has received the September 3, 2024 declaration of counsel indicating that fees are sought solely in the amount of $475.00 and that all required change of ownership forms have been filed. The petition for final distribution, as modified, is granted. Petitioner shall submit a new proposed order that incorporates this information.

3. PR0000549 In the Matter of Rodolfo Petschek

On the court’s motion, the petition to administer the estate is continued until Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Appearances are required. The petition to administer estate indicates that the decedent’s will waives bond, but the court is unable to locate such language in the will. Petitioner shall assist the court. Petitioner shall also file an executed duties and liabilities forthwith.

4. P10-15114 In the Matter of Robert Snell

Conservatorship 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 September 4, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived. The Public Guardian shall prepare a third account and notice/serve the same for hearing on November 15, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. A hearing is set for that same date and time.

5. PR0000588 In the Matter of Richard Kent White

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing regarding the petitions for letters of administration and special administration is continued to September 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

August 30, 2024 Dept. 6 Probate Tentative Rulings

PR0000172 In the Matter of Donald Heitzer

The petition for final distribution is granted as prayed.

PR0000190 In the Matter of Marie Pharis

The petition for final distribution is granted as prayed.

PR0000442 In the Matter of R. Bramley Palm, Jr.

No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, this matter is continued until September 13, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. for trial setting on one or more petitions. Petitioner Palm has filed a March 13, 2024, first amended petition for removal; to invalidate donative transfer based on undue influence; and for damages for elder abuse against respondent Rohde as trustee and as an individual. An objection and separate response to the same have been filed. Trustee Rohde has filed an August 7, 2024, petition to approve a first account, construe the trust instrument and for instructions regarding distribution set for hearing on September 13, 2024. No response/objection has been received presently.

PR0000516 In the Matter of Kava Moody
PR0000517 In the Matter of Aliyah Moody

Appearances are required.

The petition for guardianship of the estate is granted. The funds shall be held in a blocked account so that funds can only be withdrawn by court order. The guardian is not authorized to take possession of any funds without a specific court order permitting such. A review hearing is set September 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The guardian shall submit an order and letters of guardianship forthwith. The guardian shall open a separate account for each minor under authority of the letters of guardianship. At the review hearing and upon proof that the court-blocked accounts have been opened, the court will issue an order allowing the guardian to take possession of the funds via a check made out to the account number established for the minor.

PR0000587 In the Matter of Ronald Kowalka

The petition to confirm trust assets is granted as prayed.

PR0000592 In the Matter of George Gumulinski, Jr.

The petition for probate is granted as prayed.

The decedent’s will, a typewritten document with his signature, is not witnessed. The petitioner received it by email the day after the decedent took his own life. Petitioner requests that it be probated in accordance with Probate Code section 6110(c)(2), which provides:

(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.

As noted in Estate of Berger (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1293, "[t]hese relaxed procedures are designed to give effect to a drafter's clear intent to dispose of property through a proffered document, even when that document has procedural deficiencies or mistakes that cause it to fall short of fully complying with the Probate Code's procedures." (Id., at 1303).

Based on the declaration of petitioner, the petition for probate should be granted. The petitioner, a licensed attorney who previously represented the decedent, verifies that the email came from decedent’s email and that he recognizes the signature on the document as that of the decedent. The fact that he received the email just one day after the decedent committed suicide, while tragic, does support the conclusion that the document was intended to be his will.

P19-16497 In the Matter of Jonathan Best

No appearances are required. The court has reviewed conservatee counsel’s August 26, 2024, report and grants the request to continue the hearing for this conservatorship until October 17, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. All orders regarding the conservatorship shall remain in full force and effect.

P20-16779 In the Matter of Garwood Judd

On the court’s own motion, the biennial review hearing is continued to September 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court has requested an updated investigator’s report.

P09-14943 In the Matter of Sean Krulisky

Appearances of conservators Lienhart and Krulisky are required to show cause for their failure to appear at the biennial review hearing on July 19, 2024.

It appears the conservatee is doing well and that a conservatorship remains warranted. Conservator Lienhart is now divorced from conservator Krulisky and has moved to Missouri with the conservatee. It also appears that conservator Krulisky remains in California. No court permission was sought for the change of conservatee residence. Conservators must file an appropriate application to transfer the conservatorship to Missouri if that is to be the permanent residence for conservatee. (See Probate Code § 2001.) Conservators shall not change the residence of the conservatee without express authorization from the court.

P11-15177 In the Matter of Phillip Krulisky

Appearances of conservators Lienhart and Krulisky and conservatee are required to show cause for their failure to appear at the biennial review hearing on July 19, 2024. Input is needed as to why this conservatorship should continue. Conservator Lienhart must file her current permanent address with the court and must file/serve notice of any change thereto within one week of any future change.

PR0000555 In the Matter of Megan Jaime

Appearances are required for status. Petitioner Megan Jaime filed a May 30, 2024 petition for an order to confirm trust assets. Craig Cortez filed a June 24, 2024 objection thereto; Marilyn Steiner filed a July 2, 2024 objection thereto. Petitioner has now filed an August 20, 2024 amended petition. The court needs to know if objections are anticipated. If so, the court is inclined to set a deadline for receipt of the same and a trial date.

PR0000457 In the Matter of Dorothy Seals

On the court’s own motion, the petition to modify bond is continued to October 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Petitioner still has not served the motion to modify bond on her four brothers, two of whom have not signed a waiver of bond. The court cannot rule on the motion without proof that it was properly served.

PR0000521 In the Matter of Earlene Tankersley

The petition for attorney’s fees filed by conservatee’s attorney is granted as prayed.

The second and final account and petition for conservator fees and attorneys’ fees are both granted as prayed.

15. In the Matter of Helen Powell

The petition appointing Nevada County Public Guardian as temporary conservator is granted as prayed. The hearing on the petition for appointment of successor conservator is set for September 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

PR0000596 In the Matter of Gabriel Kulp

The petition of Barbara Roemer to administer the estate of Gabriel Kulp is granted as prayed. Proper notice was served on all persons who may be interested in the estate.

August 23, 2024 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. P07-14542 In the Matter of Michael A. Power, et al.

Appearance is required. This hearing was continued from May 31, 2024, at petitioner’s request. Petitioner was informed that no further extensions would be granted in the absences of unforeseeable and extraordinary circumstances. In connection with that continuance, petitioner was ordered to file and serve an account for 2024 by no later than July 23, 2024. No account has been filed.

P15-15875 In the Matter of Sharon Beatty

Appearances are required. The State Bar website confirms that counsel for Ms. Greeninger presently is not eligible to practice law as of July 2, 2024. Status regarding counsel is necessary. Status regarding potential resolution is also necessary.

P21-16901 In the Matter of Dorothy Doleman Survivors Trust

No appearance is required. The petition for settlement of second and final account is granted and petitioner’s actions approved. The petition for an order terminating the trust is denied without prejudice.

Probate Code section 15408 allows a court to terminate a trust if it determines that the “fair market value of the principal of a trust has become so low in relation to the cost of administration that continuation of the trust under its existing terms will defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of its purposes.” (Probate Code §15408(a)). The act of terminating a trust must be done in a “manner that conforms as nearly as possible to the intention of the settlor.” (Id.)

Petitioner has made an adequate showing as to the fair market value of the trust in relation to the cost of administering it. Specifically, the trust is worth less than $100,000.00, and petitioner has been unable to find a private fiduciary or a family member to administer it.

However, the petition does not establish that termination of the trust conforms with the intention of the decedent. Specifically, the amendment to the survivor’s trust divided the trust estate into three equal shares, one to each of decedent’s living children. The shares to Peter E. Doleman and Richard H. Doleman were to be distributed outright. However, the share to William E. Doleman was to remain in the trust, to be distributed in the discretion of the trustee.

The decedent had some reason not to grant William E. Doleman his one-third share of the trust estate outright as she granted to her two other children. Unfortunately, that reason cannot be ascertained from the amendment to the trust, and the court has concerns about Mr. Doleman’s ability to manage the assets of the trust if the trust is terminated.

The petition is denied without prejudice. In any future petition, petitioner shall submit a declaration or other evidence to establish that William E. Doleman has the capacity to manage the trust assets should the trust be terminated.

The petitioner shall continue as successor trustee until further order of the court.

P21-16983 In the Matter of The Jacobson Family Trust

No appearance is required. A review hearing is set for September 13, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The parties shall submit an updated joint status report no later than ten days before the review hearing date, including their meet and confer efforts as to petitioner’s objections to respondent’s second amended first account, as well as to the pre-death accounting prepared by petitioner.

P22-17005 In the Matter of Brandon Blackmore

No appearance is required. The petition for final distribution is continued on the court’s motion until October 4, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. The petition should be served on Janet Bullis, a known heir whose interest in the estate potentially would be affected by the account. (See Probate Code §11000.)

P79-08918 In the Matter of Vincent Parks

No appearance is required. The petition for accounting and order to show cause are continued to September 13, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Petitioner shall submit an amended petition with Schedules A-E, which were referenced in the petition but not attached to it. The amended petition shall be filed no later than ten court days before the continued hearing date.

PR0000127 In the Matter of Edwin Wallace Thomas

No appearance is required. The petition approving first and final report and petition for settlement of estate, approval of waiver of account, allowance of statutory compensation, and final distribution are granted as prayed.

PR0000358 In the Matter of Ronald Lawrence Badger

No appearance is required. The petition for final distribution is granted as prayed.

PR0000367 In the Matter of Leilani Asonia Hollingshead

No appearance is required. The court is in receipt of respondent’s opposition to the petition for instructions re: decedent’s last will and testament. The hearing on the petition is continued to September 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

PR0000398 In the Matter of Susan Drovoid

No appearance is required. The petition for final distribution is granted as prayed.

PR0000455 In the Matter of Wade Amesbury

Appearances are required. The parties shall advise the court regarding the status of settlement.

PR0000475 In the Matter of Michael Bond

No appearance is required. The petition for issuance of citation to appear and account is granted. Stephanie Deathridge and Dalton Workman are ordered to appear on October 4, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. 6, to testify and account for any property of the estate of Michael Bond which may be in their possession, or of which they may have knowledge.

PR0000580 In the Matter of Christopher Levas

No appearance is required. The petition to compel an accounting is granted. Respondent shall file and serve an accounting of her administration of decedent’s trust for the period of January 1, 2019 to August 1, 2024 on or before October 21, 2024. A hearing regarding the same is set for November 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.

The petition for breach of trust, for fraud, for attorneys’ fees and costs, and for punitive and exemplary damages is continued to October 11, 2024.

PR0000581 In the Matter of Janet Mehr

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the petition to determine claim to property and petition to invalidate trust is continued to September 20, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

15. PR0000582 In the Matter of Anita M. Mueller

No appearance is required. The petition to confirm trust assets (Heggstad petition) is continued on the court’s motion until October 3, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.. Notice was not provided to all of the Mueller children, including three disinherited children (Peter, Michael, and Thomas Mueller, Jr.), and three children who were not disinherited but who are also not trust beneficiaries or will devisees (Kris Bokelman, Suzanne Jordan, and Margaret Mueller). Pursuant to Probate Code 17203 and Probate Code section 851, those individuals appear to be persons whose right, title, or interest would be affected by the petition. The two beneficiaries (Puja and Sudha Mueller) were served with the petition. Petitioner shall re-notice the matter and include all interested parties.

PR0000588 In the Matter of Richard Kent White

Appearances are required. The State Bar website confirms that counsel for petitioner presently is not eligible to practice law as of July 2, 2024. Status regarding counsel is necessary. No further action shall be taken in connection with the petition to administer estate at this time.

PR0000593 In the Matter of CHRISTOPER LOPICCOLO

No appearance is required. The petition to administer estate is granted as prayed.

August 16, 2024 Probate Tentative Rulings

P01-13326 In the Matter of WILFRED MARTINEZ

The hearing is continued to Tuesday, August 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6 on the court’s motion and an appearance is required on that date. No appearance is required on August 16, 2024.

An order to show cause is issued as to why sanctions should not be issued against conservator Joseph Martinez for failure to file an accounting by July 19, 2024 as ordered by the court on April 19, 2024.

P14-15697 In the Matter of JUSTIN RAE KOHNKE

No appearance is required. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, August 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective August 16, 2024.

Conservatorship 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 August 21, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

P16-16034 In the Matter of RAYMOND WOODS FAMILY TRUST et al.

No appearance is required. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, August 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective August 16, 2024.

Resigned trustee’s petition for approval of final survivor’s trust accounting and report, for approval of resigned trustee’s compensation, and for discharge of resigned trustee is granted as prayed.

P19-16490 In the Matter of JULIETTE RITA ANDERSON

No appearance is required. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, August 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective August 16, 2024.

Conservatorship 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 August 14, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. It appears the conservatee’s estate may be sufficient to warrant assessment for the investigation and report.

P21-16878 In the Matter of MAXIMILLIAN GEOFFREY NEUMANN

No appearance is required. If any party wishes to appear, they must advise the clerk’s office and all parties that argument is requested and the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, August 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If no party requests to appear, the court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling effective August 16, 2024.

Conservators’ petition for approval of interim accounting is granted as prayed. The conservatorship 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 court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

The next biennial review is set for August 14, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

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

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 nccounter@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.

November 4, 2024 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001906 The Haas Law Corporation vs. Kevin Ryan

No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to January 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal of the complaint prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference with the summons and complaint.

2. CU0001243 Alexis Alberson vs. Elizabeth Dankworth, et al.

Appearance is required for the continued default prove-up hearing. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to December 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

3. CU0001336 Tamara Zuromskis vs. Jared Sawi, et al.

Appearances are required before Judge Larry Hayes.

4. CU0001429 Jonathan Fray Piland vs. The Niello Company

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

5-day non-jury trial

Trial: June 24, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: June 13, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: June 2, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

The court set these dates without the benefit of case management conference statements from either party.

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

No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to December 16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 after the continued hearing on the motion for order to deposit surplus funds, set for November 22, 2024.

6. CU0001491 Amy Barker vs. Dynasty Valley, LLC

No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to March 10, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to give the parties time to complete binding arbitration.

7. CU0001532 Jonathan Cronan vs. Scott Melville

No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to January 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Trial dates will be set at the further case management conference.

8. CU0001540 Bradley Dorigo, et al. vs. County of Nevada

No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to December 30, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant State of California has not yet filed a responsive pleading.

9. CU22-086160 Kevin Malone vs. William Ferreira

Appearance is required. Plaintiff’s attorney shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to appear at the OSC hearing on October 21, 2024.

On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to December 23, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 after the hearing on defendant’s motion for joinder, set for hearing on December 6, 2024.

10. 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 February 24, 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 scheduling of mediation.

11. CL0001344 Midland Credit Management Inc. vs. David Villnow

Appearance is required. Plaintiff’s counsel shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to appear at the review hearing on September 30, 2024.

A further review hearing is set for March 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The March hearing will be vacated if a request for dismissal is filed in advance of the hearing.

12. CL0001512 Bank of America N.A. vs. Soren Robert Darr

Appearance is required. Plaintiff’s counsel shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to appear at the review hearing on September 30, 2024.

A further review hearing is set for March 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The March hearing will be vacated if a request for dismissal is filed in advance of the hearing.

13. CL0001565 Bank of America N.A. vs. Luis Angel Diaz

No appearance is required. The order to show cause is discharged in the interests of justice. The case has been dismissed without prejudice by stipulation and order.

14. CU0001304 Sergey Degtyarev vs. Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital

No appearance is required. The court previously discharged the order to show cause in light of plaintiff’s death in July 2024. (The certificate of death is attached to the September 13, 2024 declaration submitted by plaintiff’s spouse.) On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to January 27, 2025 so that decedent’s estate or successor in interest can substitute in as plaintiff if desired.

October 28, 2024 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings

1. CU0001511 Cassandra Leigh Triplett vs. Sammie's Friends Animal Shelter, et al.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to January 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendants’ demurrer is set for hearing on November 1, 2024.

2. CU0001512 Gaylene Miller vs. Ella Ryan West, et al.

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

5-day jury trial

Trial: December 2, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: November 21, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

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

3. Darrin Kurz, et al vs. Joseph Richard Ramos

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

8-day jury trial

Trial: October 21, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: October 10, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

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

These dates were set without the benefit of dates from the parties, who did not include available dates in their case management statements.

4. CU0001521 Ramy Kaufler Eden vs. Sherali Gas Company Inc.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to November 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a dismissal or request for default if a responsive pleading is not filed by defendant by the date of the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.

5. CU0001524 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Jerad G. Hioki

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal one week before the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.

Plaintiff did not file a case management conference statement and is admonished that it will be subject to sanctions if a statement is not timely filed in advance of the continued case management conference.

6. CU0001525 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company vs. Joshua Edward Daniel

Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.

7. CU0001528 Stephanie Flores vs. Alisa Salvestrini

8. CU0001529 National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-2 vs. Sande Kay

No appearance is required. The case management conference is vacated. An order of reassignment shall issue as well as an order for a rescheduled case management conference.

9. CU21-085424 David Hunter vs. Bruce Coy, et al.

Appearances are required. The court did not receive a case management conference from either party. The parties are to update the court on the status of an amended complaint and defendant’s appeal.

10. CL0001118 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Vanessa N Taylor

No appearance is required. A stipulation for entry of judgment and notice of conditional settlement have been filed. A dismissal review hearing is set for February 3, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a dismissal at least one week before that date.

11. CU0000922 Jeana Frye, et al. vs. FCA US, LLC

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the review hearing is continued to December 23, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to give the parties time to complete the terms of the settlement agreement. If a dismissal is not filed by that date, an order to show cause will be issued.

12. CU21-085562 Savannah Reaves vs. City of Grass Valley, et al.

13. CU21-085797 Koslin and Koslin Construction Inc. vs. GV Development LLC

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the order to show cause re: dismissal is continued to December 23, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to give the parties time to complete the terms of the settlement agreement. If a dismissal is not filed by that date, an order to show cause will be issued.

October 21, 2024 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001357 Student Loan Solutions, LLC vs. Juliet L Hiles-Grath

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

2-hour non-jury trial (limited jurisdiction matter)

Trial: May 5, 2025, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 6

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

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

5-day non-jury trial

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

PTC: April 25, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: April 14, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

3. CU0001142 Bon Marie Munier Special Needs Trust vs. Edwin A. Klein, et al.

No appearance is required. A notice of conditional settlement has been filed. A dismissal review hearing is set for July 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a dismissal at least one week before that date.

4. CU0001345 Gutierrez Penn Valley Enterprises, Inc. vs. D&L Siding Inc., et al.

No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to December 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

Cross-complainant North River Insurance Company shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal of the cross-complaint as to D&L Siding, Inc., Louis and Lou Ann Kolb, and iFab, Inc. Cross-defendant shall serve notice of the continued case management conference with the summons and cross-complaint on the unserved cross-defendants.

Cross-complainants D&L Siding, Louis Kolb, and Lou Ann Kolb have served their cross-complaint on cross-defendant Deacon Construction, LLC. A responsive pleading has not yet been filed. Cross-complainants shall serve notice of the continued case management conference on cross-defendant.

5. CU0001354 Cynthia Gustafson vs. Safeway Inc., et al.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff has not yet served defendant’s store manager, designated as Doe 1 in the complaint. If not done already, plaintiff shall ascertain that defendant’s identity, amend the complaint, and serve the Doe defendant prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management with the summons and complaint.

6. CU21-085893 Tom Amesbury, et al. vs. Barbara Heger, et al.

Appearance is required. Counsel was ordered to file a declaration updating the court on the status of binding arbitration with the Hon. Ben Davidian, Ret. (JAMS) who was appointed arbitration on August 20, 2024. The parties shall update the court regarding the same.

7. CL0001560 Midland Credit Management Inc. vs. Jessica L McGregor

No appearance is required. A notice of conditional settlement has been filed. A dismissal review hearing is set for January 6, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a dismissal at least one week before that date.

8. CU0000268 In the Matter of the People of the State of California

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the review hearing is continued to December 16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a dismissal prior to the continued hearing.

9. CU0000995 Brooks A. Gill, Trustee of the Brooks A. Gill Separate Property Trust vs. Steven Archer, et al.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the review hearing is continued to December 16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court is in receipt of the parties’ proposed stipulation and order for entry of judgment. The continuance will give the parties time to complete the terms of the settlement.

10. CU21-085655 Nicholas Findley vs. Christopher Anderson, et al.

No appearance is required. A notice of conditional settlement has been filed. A dismissal review hearing is set for March 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a dismissal at least one week before that date.

11. CU0001189 Corina Loving-Mills, et al. vs. Abby Jean Eidson

No appearance is required. The order to show cause is discharged. 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

12. CU0001601 In the Matter of Sarah Deal

Appearance is required. Petitioner shall show cause why she should not be sanctioned for failure to appear at the trial setting conference on September 23, 2024.

13. CU22-086160 Kevin Malone vs. William Ferreira

Appearance is required. Defendant shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on September 23, 2024. The parties shall be prepared to discuss trial setting.

October 14, 2024 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings

THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE ISSUED BY THE HON. THOMAS M. ANDERSON (RET.) ON BEHALF OF THE HON. ROBERT TICE-RASKIN.

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

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a dismissal or request for default if a responsive pleading is not filed by defendant by the date of the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.

2. CU0001301 Tom Falls et al vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., et al.

No appearance is required. This case has been removed to Federal Court. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued for tracking purposes to January 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

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

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, pending plaintiff’s petition for coordination.

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

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiffs shall file a responsive pleading to defendants’ cross-complaint.

5. CU0001483 Susan Gabrielle, fka Susan G. Turner-Conlon vs. Phillip G. Conlon, Jr.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a responsive pleading to defendant’s cross-complaint.

Neither party filed a case management conference statement and are admonished to file a timely statement prior to the continued case management conference or be subject to sanctions.

6. CU0001498 Robin Fladeboe, et al. vs. Gail H. Beardsley, et al.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (if deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants Chad Beardsley and Christopher Beardsley by the date of the continued case management conference. There is no filed responsive pleading from defendant Gail H. Beardsley individually or as trustee to the James M. Beardsley and Gail H. Beardsley Revocable Trust.

Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference on all defendants.

7. CU0001501 Zena Hashim vs. Paul Anthony Bernucci

Defendant did not file a case management conference statement and is admonished to file a timely statement prior to the continued case management conference or be subject to sanctions.

8. CU0001502 Frances Cesak vs. Lake Wildwood Association

No appearance is required.

Trial is hereby set as follows:

7-day jury trial

Trial: November 25, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: November 14, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: November 3, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

These dates were set without the benefit of dates from defendant, who did not file a case management statement.

9. CU0001600 Darlene Lea vs. Cynthia Chapman, et al.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to November 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Casey Chapman filed a case management conference statement, but there is no responsive pleading filed.

October 7, 2024 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings

1. CL20-084730 Rocky Top Rentals, LLC vs. Levi Warner

An order to show cause is set for November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6 regarding sanctions for failure to dismiss defendant Warner and file a proof of service by publication as to defendant Spiller, as previously ordered. (See Rule of Court 3.110(f).) Plaintiff shall file a request for dismissal and proof of service by publication by November 4, 2024. Plaintiff shall give notice of the OSC hearing and continued CMC to all parties.

2. CU0000663 Brian Kelley, et al. vs. Rebecca Aycock, et al.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The case is not at issue. Defendants Paula Aycock and Rebecca Aycock have not yet filed a responsive pleading to the first amended complaint.

3. CU0000795 Mark G. Jones vs. Barbara L. Reamer, et al.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to November 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The case is not at issue. Defendant SPFF, Inc. is the only remaining defendant (after other defendants’ demurrers were sustained without leave to amend) and intends to file a demurrer. This demurrer should be filed as expeditiously as possible.

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

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The parties requested a continuance to give them time to meet and confer on the issue of class certification.

5. CU0001485 Randi Nash vs. Emil John Vodonick

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The case is not at issue. Defendant Vodonick has not yet filed a responsive pleading to the complaint. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued CMC.

6. CU0001487 Holly Shepard vs. Richard James Ralph Hollingshead

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The case is not at issue. Defendant Hollingshead has not yet filed a responsive pleading to the complaint. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued CMC.

7. CU0001491 Amy Barker vs. Dynasty Valley, LLC

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to November 4, 2024, after the October 11, 2024 hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.

8. CU0000316 Mardi L. Fisher v. Brandon O. Williams, et al.

No appearance is required. As the property has not been listed for sale as previously ordered, the court shall appoint a partition referee. Each party shall submit the names of three proposed referees no later than October 16, 2024, taking into account the prohibitions of Code of Civil Procedure section 873.050. The court shall appoint a referee from the lists of names submitted.

9. CU0000817 Dwight Johnson vs. Kim West

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, a dismissal hearing is set for January 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to give the parties time to seek an order approving minor’s compromise.

10. CU20-084434 David Daunch vs. Judy Jack, et al.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, a dismissal hearing is set for October 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court awaits receipt of the financial institution’s filing of the order to deposit money into blocked account and receipt of settlement funds.

11. CU0001339 In the Matter of Quality Loan Service Corp.

No appearance is required. The court received the October 2, 2024 declaration of counsel. The order to show cause is discharged. The clerk shall set a hearing regarding claims for surplus funds for December 13, 2024, 9:00. The clerk shall give notice of the same as directed by the court.

September 30, 2024 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001352 Rocky Top Rentals, LLC vs. Maureen Elizabeth Laffey, et al.

No appearance is required. The case management conference is continued to November 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Neither defendant has been served. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (as deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal by November 12, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued CMC with the summons and complaint.

Plaintiff did not file a case management conference statement. Sanctions will be issued to any party that does not file and serve a case management conference statement fifteen days prior to the continued case management conference.

2. CU0000284 Tod duBois vs. Scott Fetty

Appearance is required on the previously issued order to show cause for failure to serve summons and complaint.

3. CU0000485 Jennifer Hicks, et al. vs. Sonia Sokolow, et al.

On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. It appears that all parties have been served. The order to show cause is discharged. The case is not at issue. None of the defendants has filed an answer or other responsive pleading to the first amended complaint. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued CMC.

4. CU0000991 Christopher Bay Stormbringer vs. Turning Point

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference and order to show cause regarding sanctions for failure to timely serve the summons and complaint as ordered at the last case management conference are continued to October 14, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court notes that the previously issued order to show cause was served on plaintiff at his previous address. The previous order to show cause shall be served by the clerk on plaintiff at his new address.

Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (as deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant prior to that date. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the OSC hearing and continued CMC with the summons and complaint

5. CU0001308 Cephren Jennemann vs. Gro-Tech Systems, Inc., et al.

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service as to defendant Gro-Tech Systems, Inc. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (as deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal by November 4, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued CMC with the summons and complaint.

Plaintiff did not file a case management conference statement for the initial case management conference or the continued case management conference. Defendant Scott Stephan has not filed a case management conference for the continued case management conference. Sanctions will be issued to any party that does not file and serve a case management conference statement fifteen days prior to the continued case management conference.

6. CU0001406 Madilyn Cerola vs. Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley &

Northern Nevada, Inc.

No appearances are required.

Trial is hereby set as follows:

5-day jury trial

Trial: September 23, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: September 12, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: September 2, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

7. CU0001454 16th LB, Inc. vs. Trusteel, LLC, et al.

Appearance is required. Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service as to defendants Hayden Tucker, Botanical Equipment, or Van Lenten Beverage. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (as deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal by November 12, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued CMC with the summons and complaint.

It appears that a default was entered against defendant Van Lenten and that defendant Van Lenten filed a demurrer afterwards. Plaintiff and defendant Van Lenten must advise the court of their positions with respect thereto.

8. CU0001460 In the Matter of Carolyn Bronson

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to January 13, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to give petitioner additional time to determine the distribution of trust account funds.

9. CU0001472 John O. Whalin, III, et al. vs. James Christian David Williams

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service as to defendant. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (as deemed appropriate), or a request for dismissal by November 4, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued CMC with the summons and complaint.

10. CU0001475 Westcon Construction Corp. vs. Nevada Irrigation District

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to give the parties time to complete mediation.

September 23, 2024 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings

THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CALENDAR WILL BE HEARD BY THE HONORABLE JAMES LaPORTE.

1. CL0000572 Gerry Reis v. Roger Reis

No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service of the first amended complaint by October 21, 2024.

The parties are admonished that they are required to file and serve timely case management conference statements and are ordered to do so in advance of the continued case management conference.

2. CL0001222 Lillion Mae Watson vs. Mike Hylan, et al.

No appearance is required.

Trial is hereby set as follows:

5-day non-jury trial

Trial: August 26, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: August 15, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: August 4, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

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

No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

Plaintiff Vieira shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication, or a request for dismissal of defendant Estate of Judith Knolle by October 21, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference with the summons and complaint.

Plaintiff Estate of Judith Knolle shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication, or a request for dismissal of defendant State of California by October 21, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference with the summons and complaint.

The motion for reconsideration of the granting of summary judgment by defendant Department of Transportation against plaintiffs Andrea Janecek and Richard Knolle was denied. The Court notes that it has not received a notice of order. Defendant shall file the notice of order forthwith.

For purposes of case management and trial setting, the parties are encouraged to include their available dates for trial. They are admonished that the use of “Per Code” for discovery completion is not helpful. Specific dates must be provided.

4. CU0000681 Bruce Kapsack, et al. vs. Mark Wyman, et al.

Appearance is required.

5. CU0000858 Employers Preferred Insurance Company vs. Joseph Putzel

No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

Plaintiff’s case management statement represents that all parties have been served. There is no proof of service filed as to Doe 1 defendant Garrison. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication, or a request for dismissal of this defendant by October 21, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference with the summons and complaint.

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

No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to October 21, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6 after the hearing on defendant Bragg’s motion to set aside default, set for October 11, 2024.

7. CU0001226 ODK Capital, LLC, a Utah LLC vs. Simply Country, Inc., et al.

No appearances are required. On its own motion, the Court continues the case management conference to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A.

No responsive pleading has been filed by either of the defendants. Plaintiff shall file a dismissal or request for default if responsive pleadings are not filed by the date of the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.

8. CU0001339 In the Matter of Quality Loan Service Corp.

No appearances are required. An order to show cause is set for October 7, 2024 for petitioner to explain why it has not complied with the court’s order to serve a copy of the petition and associated documents on the former property owner at the address provided in the Sacramento County case referenced in the petition for service of documents in that case.

9. CU0001343 Raedean Hunter vs. Dana Marie Texeira et al

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

5-day jury trial

Trial: August 19, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. A

PTC: August 8, 2025, 1:30 p.m., Dept. A

MSC: July 28, 2025, 1:30 p.m., Dept. A

The Court set these dates without the benefit of plaintiff and defendant Texeira advising of their availability for trial. Defendant Texeira is admonished that “Per Code” is not helpful to the court for purposes of case management. Specific dates must be provided.

10. CU0001352 William Vick vs. Rmax Operating, LLC et al.

No appearance is required.

On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to October 28, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Default was entered against defendant Bobby Brown Construction, LLC on June 27, 2024. Plaintiff shall file a request for default judgment prior to the continued case management conference.

11. CU0001441 Christopher M. Huber vs. California Fair Plan Association

No appearance is required.

Trial is hereby set as follows:

10-day jury trial

Trial: August 26, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: August 15, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: August 4, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

12. CU0001450 John Wagner vs. Eric Eugene Harvey

No appearance is required.

Trial is hereby set as follows:

7-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

September 16, 2024 Dept. 6 Case Management (CMC) Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001259 Deal, Thomas M v. Gerkensmeyer, Fred et al

No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to December 16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

2. CU0000376 Moriarty, Liam v. Tahoe Club Employee Company, et al.

No appearances are required. The case management conference is continued to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6 to give the parties additional time to complete mediation, rescheduled to October 16, 2024.

3. CU0000569 Susan Foote vs. Jenny Renee Hunter Kaeding

No appearances are required. A bankruptcy stay has been filed. The case management conference is continued to January 27, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

4. CU0000958 Alora Willer et al vs. Crown Point Partnership et al

No appearances are required. The case management conference is continued to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The complaint was filed in November 2023, but there is no proof of service on the defendant. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication, or a request for dismissal by November 4, 2024. It appears that an answer was filed by Crown Point Partnership after a default was entered. The court encourages the parties to meet and confer regarding the same. The parties must advise the court how they intend to proceed at the next CMC. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued CMC with the summons and complaint.

5. CU0001008 David B. Weybright et al vs. Thor Industries, LLC et al

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

5-day non-jury trial

Trial: June 24, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: June 13, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: June 2, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

6. CU0001082 Protzman, Stephen David Jr v. Hansen Brothers Enterprises

7. CU0001112 JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. vs. DC Tile, Inc.

No appearances are required. The case management conference is continued to November 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Default has been entered against defendant. If a default judgment is to be sought, plaintiff shall file a request for the same prior to the continued case management conference.

8. CU0001181 Cynthia Hermosa vs. Adam Rayford Kilpatrick et al

Appearances are required pursuant to the court’s previous Order to Show Cause for plaintiff’s failure to appear at the June 17, 2024 case management conference.

In addition, there is no proof of service on defendant Woodgrift. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication (if desired), or a request for dismissal by November 4, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued CMC with the summons and complaint.

Neither party filed a case management conference statement. Sanctions will be issued to any party that does not file and serve a case management conference statement fifteen days prior to the continued case management conference.

9. CU0001196 In Re Margie DeMartini

No appearances are required. The case management conference is continued to November 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. A hearing is set for October 11, 2024, regarding the sale of the dwelling.

10. CU0001199 Valerie Latchman vs. Casey Brubaker

No appearances are required. Plaintiff failed to file a case management conference statement as required for today’s conference. An order to show cause is set for December 30, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for failure to file a case management conference statement. See Local Rule 4.00.8. The court has received plaintiff’s application for an order permitting service by publication. The case management conference is continued to December 30, 2024, same date and location. Notice of the continued case management conference shall be given by plaintiff if the whereabouts of defendant are ascertained.

11. CU0001306 Kurtis Zumwalt vs. Joshua Edward Daniel

No appearances are required. The case management conference is continued to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 4. There is no proof of service on the defendant. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication, or a request for dismissal by November 4, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued CMC with the summons and complaint.

12. CU0001336 Tamara Zuromskis vs. Jared Sawi, et al.

Appearances are required.

13. CU0001438 Marika Smolensky vs. William Ganch et al

No appearances are required.

Trial is hereby set as follows:

5-day jury trial

Trial: August 19, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: August 8, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: July 28, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

September 9, 2024 Dept. 6 Case Management Conference (CMC) Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001469 United Financial Casualty Company vs. Ron Sanchez

No appearances are required.

The case management conference is continued to November 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The complaint was filed in February, 2024 and has not yet been served. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication as warranted, or a request for dismissal by October 21, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference with the summons and complaint.

2. CL20-084730 Rocky Top Rentals LLC vs. Levi Warner

No appearances are required.

An order to show cause is now set for November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6 regarding sanctions for failure to dismiss defendant Warner and file proof of service by publication as to defendant Spiller, as previously ordered. (See Rule of Court 3.110(f).) Plaintiff shall file a request the request for dismissal and proof of service by publication by November 4, 2024. Plaintiff shall give notice of the OSC hearing and continued CMC to all parties.

3. CU0000385 Derek Olsen, et al. v. David Sugalski, et al.

No appearances are required.

The case management conference is continued to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The first amended complaint has not yet been served on defendant Wild Acorns Learning Center. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication as warranted, or a request for dismissal by November 4, 2024. Plaintiff shall give notice of the continued case management conference to all parties.

4. CU0000953 Rodney Winter, et al. vs. Mountain Hardware & Sports, Inc., et al.

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

7- day jury trial

Trial: June 10, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: May 30, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: May 19, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

5. CU0001120 Mark David Percin vs. Albertsons Safeway LLC

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

7- day jury trial

Trial: June 24, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: June 13, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: June 2, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

6. CU0001159 Jon Landon vs. Harmony Ridge Resorts, et al.

No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is vacated. This matter is being reassigned to another judicial officer. The order of reassignment will specify the new case management conference date and location.

7. CU0001189 Corina Loving-Mills, et al. vs. Abby Jean Eidson

No appearance is required.

The court notes that the complaint in this matter was filed on January 26, 2024, but that it has not been served after plaintiff was granted two extensions of time to do so. The case management conference is continued to, and an order to show cause (OSC) regarding sanctions for failure to timely serve the summons and complaint (see Rule of Court 3.110(f)) is set for, October 21, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication as warranted, or a request for dismissal by October 7, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the OSC hearing and continued CMC on all parties.

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

No appearances are required.

The case management conference is continued to December 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Defendants Zarlasht Fakiri, Community Health Centers of America, and Chandan Cheema, dba Capital Extended Medical Care have been served with the complaint but have not yet filed responsive pleadings. Defendants Doe 1-3, 5 and 6 have filed a petition to compel arbitration, set for hearing on October 4, 2024.

Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference on all parties.

9. CU0001241 Roberto Ordaz Morales vs. Tina Marie Terrell, et al.

No appearances are required.

The case management conference is continued to December 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The complaint was filed in February, 2024 and has not yet been served. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication as appropriate, or a request for dismissal by November 18, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference on all parties.

10. CU0001243 Alexis Alberson vs. Elizabeth Dankworth, et al.

No appearances are required.

The case management conference is continued to November 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. A default prove-up hearing as to defendant McKenna is set for October 25, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. 6.

11. CU0001249 Tina Warner v. Jennie Pope

No appearance is required.

Plaintiff was previously ordered to apply to the court for an order for service summons via publication on “all unknown persons” as named in the complaint. In addition, plaintiff was ordered to have defendant Pope personally served and to file the proof of service of summons before the continued hearing date. Plaintiff was also ordered to file an https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/jcc-form/CM-110 form at least 15 days before that date to inform the court of the status of the case. Plaintiff has not complied with any of these orders.

The case management conference is continued to, and an order to show cause (OSC) regarding sanctions for failure to timely serve the summons and complaint (Rule of Court 3.110(f)) and for failure to file a case management conference statement as required is set for November 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication, or a request for dismissal by November 18, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the OSC hearing and continued CMC on all parties. with the summons and complaint.

12. CU0001290 John Doe 1, et al. vs. Erica’s Playhouse, et al.

No appearance is required.

In light of the court’s prior partial stay on discovery, the case management conference is continued to January 6, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

The court notes plaintiffs’ representation in their case management conference statement that the case has been set for trial. It has not.

13. CU0001304 Sergey Degtyarev vs. Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital

No appearances are required.

Plaintiff was previously ordered to serve the defendant before the next case management conference and to serve a case management conference statement 14 days before the next case management conference. Plaintiff has not complied with either order.

The case management conference is continued to, and an order to show cause (OSC) regarding sanctions for failure to timely serve the summons and complaint (Rule of Court 3.110(f)) and for failure to serve a case management conference statement is set for November 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication as appropriate, or a request for dismissal by November 18, 2024. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the OSC hearing and continued CMC on all parties.

14. CU0001320 Sara Bowling vs. Caseproof, LLC, et al.

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

7- 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

15. CU0001418 John and Sandra Bacon, Trustees, etc., vs. Statewide Homes, Inc.

No appearance is required.

The case management conference is continued to November 18, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. According to defendant’s case management conference statement, plaintiff is expected to file an amended complaint. Defendant shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication, or a request for dismissal of the cross-complaint by November 4, 2024. Defendant shall give notice of the continued CMC to all parties.

16. CU0001429 Jonathan Fray Piland vs. The Niello Company

No appearances are required.

The case management conference is continued to November 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Defendant Niello Company has been served but has not yet filed a responsive pleading. Plaintiff shall give notice of the continued case management conference to all parties.

17. CU0001430 Bertha Shuman vs. William Larsen

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

7- day jury trial

Trial: August 19, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: August 8, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: July 28, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

18. CL0001565 Bank of America N.A. vs. Luis Angel Diaz

Appearances are required. The parties shall advise the court regarding the status of settlement and dismissal.

19. CU0000778 Tricia Dowden vs. Sammie's Friends

No appearances are required. The action has been dismissed at the request of plaintiff. The review hearing is vacated.

20. CU0001431 Joshua David Packard vs. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al.

No appearances are required. The action has been removed to federal court. The case management conference is vacated.

August 26, 2024 Case Management Conference (CMC) Tentative Rulings

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

No appearances are required. The case management conference is continued to October 7, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

The demurrer of defendant Veritas Capital, LLC was heard on August 23, 2024, the motion to set aside the default of defendant SPFF, LP is set for hearing on September 20, 2024. Defendant Sierra Asset Investments has submitted a proposed order on its demurrer to the second amended complaint.

CU0000899 Nathaniel Salvin vs. Kiavi Funding, Inc., et al.

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

3-day non-jury trial

Trial: March 4, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: February 21, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

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

CU0000902 Derrick Logan vs. County of Nevada, et al.

Appearances are required to discuss trial estimate. A potential schedule is as follows:

Jury Trial: August 5, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: July 25, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: July 14, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

CU0000958 Alora Willer, et al. vs. Crown Point Partnership, et al.

No appearances required. The case management conference is continued to September 16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Defendant Olguin has not been served. The court notes that a default was entered against Crown Point Partnership, but an answer by the individual defendants, dba Crown Point Partnership, was filed after the default was entered.

CU0001407 Guilmard, Maya v. CSAA Insurance Exchange

No appearances are required. The case management conference is continued to October 21, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The case is not at issue. According to plaintiff’s case management conference statement, defendant has been served. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service within ten days.

August 19, 2024 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

CL0001287 Velocity Investments, LLC vs. Alexandra Shay

Appearance is required. The parties shall advise the court of the status of the case, including any potential amended complaint to correct the name of the defendant.

2. CL0001716 Cavalry SPV I LLC vs. Bill Ferris

No appearance is required. A July 10, 2024 notice of settlement has been filed with an indication that a dismissal would be filed by July 12, 2026. Barring objection by any party, this matter shall be dismissed without prejudice at this time in light of the reported settlement.

CU0000045 Guyton, Jeffrey P v. Cruz, Devon German et al.

No appearance is required.

The case management conference is continued to, and an order to show cause (OSC) regarding sanctions for failure to timely serve the summons and complaint (see Rule of Court 3.110(f)) is set for September 16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The complaint was filed in May 2022 and has not been served after multiple case management conferences and orders to serve the summons/complaint. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication, or a request for dismissal prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the OSC hearing and continued CMC with the summons and complaint.

CU0000663 BRIAN KELLEY et al. vs. REBECCA AYCOCK et al.

No appearance is required.

The case management conference is continued to October 7, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Defendants Rebecca and Paula Aycock have filed a motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages, which is set for hearing on September 6, 2024.

CU0001207 Amanda Powell vs. Briarpatch Cooperative of Nevada, Inc.

No appearance is required.

The case management conference is continued to November 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6 as requested by the parties to give them time to complete mediation (scheduled for November 11, 2024).

CU0001388 Joshua Scott et al. vs. Loren R. Winters

No appearance is required.

Trial is hereby set as follows:

7-day jury trial

Trial: May 20, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: May 10, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

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

CU0001400 VyStar Credit Union vs. Sean Cody Hatcher

No appearance is required.

Trial is hereby set as follows:

2-day nonjury trial

Trial: February 17, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

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

MSC: January 27, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

CU0001401 Mary Kelly Williams vs. Georganne Green

No appearance is required.

Trial is hereby set as follows:

5-day jury trial

Trial: June 17, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

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

MSC: May 27, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

CU0001405 Bill Me Later, Inc., WebBank vs. Mini Mania, Inc.

On the court’s own motion, the case management conference is vacated. Entry of judgment has been filed.

CU0001406 Madilyn Cerola vs. Goodwill Industries

No appearance is required.

The case management conference is continued to September 30, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. While defendant has filed a case management conference statement, there is no responsive pleading in the court’s file. Defendant shall file its responsive pleading prior to the next case management conference.

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

Appearances are required to address the parties’ objections, if any, to the tentative ruling issued for the July 29, 2024 case management conference. The tentative was as follows: The deadline for the filing of any dispositive motion, including a motion for summary judgment/adjudication is September 13, 2024. Trial on the second and third causes of action of the complaint is set as follows:

7-day jury trial

Trial: 12/3/25, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: 11/22/25, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: 11/18/25, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

August 12, 2024 Civil Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

CU0000485 Hicks, Jennifer et al v. Sokolow, Sonia et al.

No appearances are required.

The court notes that the complaint in this matter was filed on December 30, 2022. All defendants were served with the original complaint. A first and second amended complaint have since been filed, but none of the defendants have been served. The case is not at issue.

The case management conference is continued to September 30, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. An order to show cause (OSC) regarding sanctions for failure to timely serve the summons and complaint is also set for September 30, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication, or a request for dismissal of the unserved defendants prior to that date.

CU0000642 Jeffrey Roper vs. Justis Ty Conway et al.

No appearances are required.

Trial is hereby set as follows:

7-day jury trial

Trial: January 7, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: December 27, 2024, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: December 16, 2024, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

CU0000943 Russell Roark vs. Stephen Cardosi, et al.

Appearances are required.

An order to show cause was issued for this date for plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to serve the summons and complaint.

CU0000991 Stormbringer, Christopher Bay v. Turning Point

No appearances are required.

The case management conference is continued to September 30, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. An order to show cause (OSC) regarding sanctions for failure to timely serve the summons and complaint as ordered at the last case management conference is also set for September 30, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application to serve by publication, or a request for dismissal of the two unserved defendants prior to that date.

Plaintiff shall serve notice of the OSC hearing and continued CMC with the summons and complaint.

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

No appearances are required.

The case management conference is continued to October 14, 2024 at 9:00am in Dept. 6. The case is not at issue. Plaintiff’s motion for an order for service by publication is set for hearing on August 16, 2024. If the order is granted, plaintiff is to comply forthwith.

CU0001378 Robert Stern vs. Emil Caruso et al.

No appearances are required.

Trial is hereby set as follows:

5-day jury trial

Trial: January 14, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6

PTC: January 3, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: December 23, 2024, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6

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

No appearances are required.

The case management conference is continued to October 14, 2024 at 9:00am in Dept. 6. The case is not at issue. Plaintiffs represent in their case management conference statement that all defendants were served and have agreed to file their responsive pleadings by September 18, 2024. Plaintiffs to give notice to defendants. Further case management conference statements are required.

CU21-084355 Tresa Jay, et al. vs. Coach N Four Motel, et al.

Appearances are required.

The parties were previously ordered to meet and confer regarding trial setting, and plaintiff was previously ordered to have defendant Nancy MacDuff served or dismissed.

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 nccounter@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

November 07, 2024 Department 3 Guardianship Annual Review Tentative Rulings

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.

11/07/2024 at 9:00 a.m. Guardianship Calendar Tentative Rulings Department 3

Case No. P07-15565 In the Matter of: Wesley E.

The Court has not received the GC-251 Annual Confidential Status Report from the Guardian. However, the Court notes that the Guardianship shall terminate as a matter of law on 12/08/2024 when the minor reaches age eighteen. No further review hearing is set.

Case No. P09-14861 In the Matter of: Madison 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 10/24/2024. Your appearance on Thursday, 11/07/2024, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. Guardianship shall terminate as a matter of law on 03/29/2025 when the minor reaches age eighteen. No further review hearing is set.

Case No. P17-16074 In the Matter of: Valerie R.

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 10/02/2024. Your appearance on Thursday, 11/07/2024, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 11/06/2025 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.

Case No. P17-16116 In the Matter of: Vincent W.

The Court has not received the GC-251 Annual Confidential Status Report from the Guardians. The matter is set for hearing on Thursday, 11/07/2024, 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.

Case No. P19-16522 In the Matter of: Colleen G.

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 10/15/2024. Your appearance on Thursday, 11/07/2024, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 11/06/2025 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.

Case No. P21-16935 In the Matter of: Lucius P.

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 10/03/2023. Your appearance on Thursday, 11/07/2024, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. Guardianship shall terminate as a matter of law on 08/19/2025 when the minor reaches age eighteen. No further review hearing is set.

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

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

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

Friday, August 2, 2024 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference

Friday, July 5, 2024, Department 3 Family Law Status Conference

Friday, June 7, 2024, Department 3 Family Law Status Conference

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.
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 .
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

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.

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 .
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

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.
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

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.

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 .
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

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.

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.
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

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.

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.
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.
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.
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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 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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.
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.
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.
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

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.

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.
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.

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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.

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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.

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.
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.
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

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.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.
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 .
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.
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

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.

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 .
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

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.

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 .
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

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.

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 .
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

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.

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 .
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

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.
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 .
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

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.

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 .
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

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.

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 .
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.

The Court notes that Judgment documents have been submitted for review.
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

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.
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 .
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.
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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.

The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
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.
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

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.
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 .
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.
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 .
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.

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.
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.

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

The Status Conference is vacated because the case is already scheduled for case management conference and trial setting in Dept 5.

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

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.

The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
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.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

The Status Conference is vacated because the case is already scheduled for case management conference and trial setting in Dept 5.
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

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.

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 .
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.
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

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.

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.
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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000807

Petitioner: Gonsalez, Gustavo

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Zahir, Vevalinea

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.

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. Documents stated appear to be incorrect.
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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000830

Petitioner: Adams, Richard

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Adams, Tanya

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.

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-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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000834

Petitioner: Johanesen, Lainie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Ryan, Richard

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.

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 shows service less than 30 days ago. 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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000835

Petitioner: Tymkowicz, Kyleen

Attorney: Tymkowicz, Sasha

Respondent: Dickson, Brian

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.

The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000903

Petitioner: Schwartz, Patrick

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Schwartz, Lacey B.

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.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
he standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001344

Petitioner: Tibbets, Ariana Letitia

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Johnson, Rolf Jeddidiah

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL00001398

Petitioner: Tipton, Brittany

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Cook, Jared

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001405

Petitioner: Weddle, Dylan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Canon, Chloe

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001416

Petitioner: Mantooth, Colleen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Mantooth, Steve

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL 0001723

Petitioner: Hood, Megan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Hood Brian

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001875

Petitioner: Hollingshead, Camille

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

Respondent: Hollingshead, Peter

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001878

Petitioner: Simmons, Sabrina

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Simmons, Amanda

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001898

Petitioner: Mallo, Mona-Lisa

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Mallo, Mark

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001901

Petitioner: Di Prinzio, Sharon

Attorney: Granger, Jennifer

Respondent: Di Prinzio, Matthew

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001910

Petitioner: Jenneman, Cassandra

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

Respondent: Jenneman, Chephren

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001915

Petitioner: Griffiths, Melinda Sue

Attorney: Anderson, James

Respondent: Fritz, Daryl Wayne

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001941

Petitioner: Sanskey, Bernadette

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Sansky, David

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.

The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001960

Petitioner: Keyser, Kevin

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Keyser, Rebekah

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001961

Petitioner: Vargas, Jeffrey

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Vargas, Molly

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001981

Petitioner: Farrell. Marcia Webster

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Farrell, Douglas Ted

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001982

Petitioner: Brautigam, Nga

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Brautigam, Jared

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001995

Petitioner: Colberrt, Danyel

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Bartoli, Vincent

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002005

Petitioner: Rodriguez, Hope

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Rodriguez, David

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002018

Petitioner: Samson, Allison Rivers

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Samson, David Scott

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002029

Petitioner: Sullivan, Shelly

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Morrrow, Nico

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

09/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL20-015674

Petitioner: Thomas, David

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Baker, April

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 03/07/2025, 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 03/04/2025.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 03/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000369

Petitioner: Robertson, Melissa

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Robertson, Tymol

Attorney: Self-Represented

The case has already had three status conferences. 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.

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 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.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000558

Petitioner: Katz, Michael

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Wunderly, Jenny

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.

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. Respondent has filed FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000691

Petitioner: Rutherford, Amber

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Rutherford, Sky

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.

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 Court notes that Respondent submitted a Request for Dismissal which was denied because this requires that both parties sign the request.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000708

Petitioner: Frasier, Amber

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Paradiso, Daniel

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.

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 .

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000758

Petitioner: Ben-Moshe, Erica

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

Respondent: Ben-Moshe, Eldad

Attorney: Self-Represented

This is the third status conference. Personal appearance is not required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000767

Petitioner: Newman, Lana

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Newman, Keith

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.

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 of delivery of the documents.
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 .

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000802

Petitioner: Ramsden, Jacquelyn

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Ramsden, David

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.

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 .

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001286

Petitioner: Updegraff, Brooke

Attorney: Miller, Chandra

Respondent: Updegraff, Joseph

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001315

Petitioner: Piaget, Isis

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Roldan, Pedro Merida

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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 .

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001324

Petitioner: Gardner, Michael A.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Lucero, Sara J.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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. Respondent has filed FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001328

Petitioner: Young, Maegan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Chittock, Cabe

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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.

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001341

Petitioner: Coonen, Gerrie Kopec

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Coonen, Steven J.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001363

Petitioner: Bonds, Kevin Leon

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Bonds, Kelly A.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

The Court notes that judgment forms have been submitted. The hearing will be dropped on approval of the Judgment.

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001757

Petitioner: Dixon, Doris

Attorney: Thompson, Sara

Respondent: Saucedo, Shelli

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001759

Petitioner: McCullough, Kindy

Attorney: Miller, Chandra (Ltd. Scope)

Respondent: McCullough, Ryan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001765

Petitioner: Kenyon, Alison

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kenyon, Eric

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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 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.

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001801

Petitioner: Oxsen, Devin E.

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Oxsen, Robert William

Attorney: Cecil, Kevin

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001804

Petitioner: Langlois, Mary Lou

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Langlois, David Bruce

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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 .

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001820

Petitioner: Flecksteiner, Annessa

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Flecksteiner, Jerffrey Sr.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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-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 .

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001826

Petitioner: LeVeaux, Devon

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Lopez LeVeaux, Antonio

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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 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.

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001828

Petitioner: Leishman, Seth Tyler

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Leishman, Tara

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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 .

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001831

Petitioner: Stockton, Richard Clay

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Stockton, Mariah Ann

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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.

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001838

Petitioner: Shaw, Lindsay

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Aycock, Graeme

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

The Court notes that judgment forms have been submitted. The hearing will be dropped on approval of the Judgment.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001851

Petitioner: Drake, Katherine A.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Drake, Larry G.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons if the parties want termination of marital status before 12/14/2024.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001852

Petitioner: Renwick. Eliza

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Smith, Lemuel

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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.

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001856

Petitioner: Guild, Steven

Attorney: Moore, James

Respondent: Guild, Andrea

Attorney: Medina, Angelina

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001874

Petitioner: Holmstrom, Richard III

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Holmstrom, Ashley

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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 .

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

08/02/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001905

Petitioner: Alvarado, Jesseca R.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Alvarado, Brian M.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/07/2025, 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 02/04/2025.

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 .

The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/07/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000621

Petitioner: Ryan, Clint

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Rodrigues Ryan, Elizabeth Susan

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.

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 of delivery of the documents.
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 .
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000629

Petitioner: Anderson, Alison Marie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Anderson, Zach

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.

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 of delivery of the documents.
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 .
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000632

Petitioner: Glines, Deborah

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Glines, Stephen

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.
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 .
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000637

Petitioner: Azcarate, Antonio

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Alcalay, Milna

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.

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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000648

Petitioner: McQuade, Jason

Attorney: Walters, Cleat Self-Represented

Respondent: McQuade, Amanda

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.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001023

Petitioner: Davis, Jerrett

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Davis, Angel

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001159

Petitioner: Hojnacki, Jennifer

Attorney: Medina, Angelina

Respondent: Taapa, Jonathon

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL00001176

Petitioner: Adachi, Craig

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Adachi, Susan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001193

Petitioner: Belendez, Rachel

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Belendez, Robert

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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 . .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001197

Petitioner: Trethewey, Mary E.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Trethewey, Paul M.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.
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 of delivery 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001203

Petitioner: Selletti, Stephanie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Selletti, Justin

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.
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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001205

Petitioner: Stockton, Thomas

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Stockton, Marianne

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001214

Petitioner: Denu-White, Donna

Attorney: Strasser, Laura

Respondent: White, Michael

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001237

Petitioner: Mosley, Ryan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Headrick, Jennifer

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001238

Petitioner: Grant, James

Attorney: Christie, Nancy

Respondent: Cookson, Christine

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001262

Petitioner: Iorns, Rebecca

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Iorns, Jonathan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Respondent’s default was entered on 08/17/2024, but Petitioner has not submitted further documents to finish the case.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001581

Petitioner: Larkins, Bridget Browning

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Larkins, Jonathan Robert

Attorney: Bisson-Dath, Jonathan

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001683

Petitioner: Skellenger, Jason

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Skellengerm Katherine

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL00001698

Petitioner: Cook, Tia

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Cook, Scott

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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 fixed, 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.
    1. 1. 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.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001700

Petitioner: Dolcini, Keith

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Dolcini, Hannah

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001708

Petitioner: Vickers, Ariana Kathleen

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Vickers, Matthew William

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001712

Petitioner: Kanani, Babak

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kanani, Miriam

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001731

Petitioner: Placido, Stanley

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Placido, Vivian

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001753

Petitioner: Kaur, Kirandeep

Attorney: Smathers, H. Gary

Respondent: Jose Bendana, Aldo

Attorney: Patrick, Sean

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001755

Petitioner: Christensen, Mardalynne Caldwell

Attorney: Christie, Nancy

Respondent: Christensen, Jeffrey

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001763

Petitioner: Menzes, Rebecca

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Menzes, Freddie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001773

Petitioner: Sanders, Jefferson

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Echternacht, Mariah

Attorney: Self-Represented

No further Status Conference will be scheduled. If neither party revokes the FL-800 petition, judgment will be entered on or after 07/05/2024.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001774

Petitioner: Acre, Jonathan Rico

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

Respondent: Davis, Brianna

Attorney: Strasser, Laura

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001775

Petitioner: Wimberly, Mary

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

Respondent: Wimberly, Gary

Attorney: Foley, Ryan

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001777

Petitioner: Brace, George

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

Respondent: Brace, Darci

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001779

Petitioner: Giguerre, Jami

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Giguerre, Aubri

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001780

Petitioner: Chazen, Traci

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Chazen, Joshua Matthew

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/03/2025, 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 12/31/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

07/05/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001832

Petitioner: Eidson, Abby

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: HIgh, Devon

Attorney: Self-Represented

This case was filed on 07/16/2020, more than 18 months ago. Further status conference is not scheduled.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

_______________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000403

Petitioner: Hernandez, Jenny Marie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Hernandez, Juan Carlos

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

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.

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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000588

Petitioner: Derrick, Seth

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Fox, Amy

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.

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 .
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000606

Petitioner: Dion, Gerald A., Jr.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Brown, Sheryl C.

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.

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 .
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000609

Petitioner: Grunewald, Daniel Chris

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Grunewald, Tina Christine

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.
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 .
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000613

Petitioner: Lee-Walker, Amanda

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Walker, Anthony

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.

The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001040

Petitioner: Williams, Kendall

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Williams, RIcky

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001071

Petitioner: VanValkenberg. Angela

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Clark, Gavin

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001073

Petitioner: Applegate, Hillary

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Applegate, Nicholas

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001076

Petitioner: Duarte, Miraiah

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Nicholson, Clint

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.
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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001093

Petitioner: Cassaro, Veo

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

Respondent: Cassaro, Robert

Attorney: Curley, Siobhan

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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001103

Petitioner: Ly, Sarah

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Ly, Cun

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001105

Petitioner: Lerche, Ella

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Ramsay, Mitchell

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001109

Petitioner: Dunmire, Judy

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Dunmire, David

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.
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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001140

Petitioner: Whitley, Sierra

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

Respondent: Whitley, Thomas

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001313

Petitioner: Carver, Christopher

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Carver, Renee

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001619

Petitioner: Knox, Keenen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Zolling, Kimberly

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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
  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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001623

Petitioner: Kendrick, Scott

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kendrick, Karen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001626

Petitioner: Gutierrez Agoado, Christine

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Gutierrez Agoado, Richard

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 / date / time / server information is 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.
    1. 1. 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.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001629

Petitioner: Driggs, Kristin L.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Driggs, Jeffrey P.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001630

Petitioner: D'Andrande, Jennifer Michelle

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: D'Andrade, Alain Victor

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001644

Petitioner: Peeler, Jennifer Jasmine

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Peeler, Jason Daniel

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001645

Petitioner: Spellman, Michael H.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Spellman, Martha Steele

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001646

Petitioner: Boehme, Lindsey

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Boheme, Zachary

Attorney: Klein, William

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 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001649

Petitioner: Lopez, Molly

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Alvarado Lopez, Ruben

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.
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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001651

Petitioner: Ford, Tara

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Tyner, Cath

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001673

Petitioner: Dana, Jayleen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Dana, Justin

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001676

Petitioner: Kenney, Brianna

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kenney, Richard

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

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 .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

_________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001692

Petitioner: Tostenson, Briannahlyn

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Tostenson, Michael

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date of service of the documents.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/07/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001702

Petitioner: Avery, Stephanie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Avery, Jerry

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/06/2024, 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 12/02/2024.

The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons ONLY if the parties want to request that marital status terminate before 07/23/2024. If the marital termination date will be on or after 07/23/2024, the Response sets the date the court acquired jurisdiction.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/06/2024, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

Truckee

Click on any of the links below to view the current tentative rulings in that category, or call (530) 362-4309.

DUE TO THE COURT'S UNAVAILABILITY, ALL OBJECTIONS TO A TENTATIVE RULING WILL BE HEARD ON OCTOBER 28, 2024 AT 1:30 P.M. IN DEPT. A. THE COURT SINCERELY APOLOGIZES FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE TO THE PARTIES AND/OR COUNSEL.

October 18, 2024 Dept. A Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Tentative Rulings

CU0000574 Christine D Morrison vs. Michael Mahon, et al.

No appearance is required. On the Court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to January 17, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. A. The Court has received a notice of settlement and wishes to give the parties time to finalize the terms of same. Upon the filing of a dismissal as to the entire case, the continued CMC will vacate.

CU0000780 Timothy Contreras, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Peak Landscape, Inc.

No appearance is required. On the Court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to January 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A. The parties are set to mediate the case on December 18, 2024. Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims against Defendant in the action remain stayed pending the arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims.

CU0001149 Ilya Aksenenko, et al. vs. Danilo Reyes Garcia

No appearance is required. On the Court’s own motion, the case management conference is continued to December 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A. There is still no filed responsive pleading from Defendant, and Plaintiff has not filed a Case Management Conference Statement. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued Case Management Conference on Defendant. The Court reserves jurisdiction to issue an OSC re Sanctions as to Plaintiff due to the failure to timely file a CMC Statement.

CU0001158 Crosby & Sons Inc. dba Crosby Homes vs. Bhushan Borole

CU0001159 Jon Landon vs. B&W Resorts, Inc., et al.

No appearance is required. The case is at issue. The Court sets the matter for trial and related trial dates as follows:

6-day court trial

Trial: August 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. A

PTC: July 15, 2025, 1:30 p.m., Dept. A

MSC: June 11, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. A

Parties and counsel are hereby advised a Pre-Trial Order shall issue by the Court. The Court finds all parties have waived Notice of Trial unless a party timely objects to this tentative ruling. The Court orders all parties to submit to the Court NO LATER THAN TEN (10) DAYS from this ruling a notice indicating whether any actual or potential conflict is waived such that the trial judge may conduct the mandatory settlement conference. Parties may submit a joint stipulation or separate filing. Parties may also contact the Court Clerk to obtain a local form that can be used for this purpose. Failure to timely file indication as to conflict waiver may result in all of the above dates being vacated and the matter being set for further case management.

In addition, the parties shall file a joint statement indicating each cause of action that remains pending and as to which party(ies) said cause of action is directed. It is the Court’s understanding no causes of action remain pending as to Bill Sinor, Jr. Due to various dismissals of some causes of action and as to only certain parties, the Court believes a joint statement will ensure all parties and counsel (and the Court) are on the same page as to the matters which remain pending. The joint statement shall be signed by all counsel and filed with the Court within thirty (30) calendar days.

CU0001204 Brad Krommenhoek vs. Future Motion, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

No appearance is required. The case is at issue; however, neither party has submitted a Case Management Conference Statement. The Court reserves jurisdiction to issue an OSC re sanctions as to each party for failure to do so. The Case Management Conference is continued to November 15, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. Parties are admonished to timely file CMC Statements.

CU0001326 Kylie Kruger vs. Piping Rock Equestrian Center, LLC

No appearance is required. On the Court’s own motion, the Case Management Conference is continued to November 15, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A. There is no filed responsive pleading from Defendant as to the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference on Defendant.

CU0001353 Roger Dean vs. Kacie Simmons, et al.

No appearance is required. The case is at issue. The Court sets trial and related dates as follows:

5-day jury trial

Trial: July 30, 31, August 1, 6, 7, 2025, 8:30 a.m. each day, Dept. A

PTC: July 1, 2025, 1:30 p.m., Dept. A

MSC: May 22, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. A

CU0001361 Ashlyn Christensen vs. Avian Borden

No appearance is required. The case is at issue. The Court notes Plaintiff has failed to timely file a Case Management Conference Statement which would apprise the Court of her and her attorney’s availability for trial and related dates. The Court reserves jurisdiction to issue an OSC re Sanctions for failure to do so should Plaintiff assert unavailability on the below dates having had opportunity to previously so advise the Court. Trial and related dates are set as follows:

5-day jury trial

Trial: September 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 2025, 8:30 a.m. each day, Dept. A

PTC: July 29, 2025, 1:30 p.m., Dept. A

MSC: June 26, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. A

CU0001471 Gerald Isaac Pease II vs. County of Nevada, et al.

No appearance is required. This matter is dropped in light of the case being moved to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. There are no further settings in this matter.

As of May 15, 2023, the Truckee Branch will no longer be preparing and posting tentative rulings for Status Conference hearings for Family Law matters.

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 trcounter@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: trcounter@nccourt.net

Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court may not be able to provide court reporters for 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 unless advised by the court clerk a court reporter will be present on the date and time set for hearing. See, Local Rule 10.00.3 B.

October 28, 2024 Dept. A Civil Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

CL0001389 Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc., Assignee of Celtic Bank vs. Vanessa Marquez

Appearance is required. Plaintiff Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc., Assignee of Celtic Bank is ordered to show cause, if any, why this action should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiff sanctioned for failure to file a Request for Default/Default Judgment. The Court notes that the Complaint was served by substituted service more than eight months ago.

2. CL0001637 Wells Fargo Bank, NA vs. Brandon R Butisbauch

Appearance is required. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank is ordered to show cause, if any, why this action should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiff sanctioned for failure to file a Proof of Service. The Court notes that the Complaint was filed approximately 6 months ago.

3. CL0001796 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC vs. Jamie R Lamoureux

Appearance is required. Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is ordered to show cause, if any, why this action should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiff sanctioned for failure to file a Request for Default/Default Judgment. The Court notes that the Complaint was served by substituted service more than three months ago.

4. CU0001425 The People of the State of California, by and through the Town of Truckee; and Town of Truckee vs. Brandon Abbey, et al.

Appearance is required. Plaintiff The People of the State of California, by and through the Town of Truckee; and Town of Truckee, a California Charter City is ordered to show cause, if any, why this action should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiff sanctioned for failure to file a Proof of Service or Request for Publication, as previously ordered. Plaintiff shall explain to the Court why, after eleven attempts at service as reflected in the previously filed Declaration of Due Diligence, Plaintiff has not filed an application for publication.

5. CU0001420 Michael Zucker v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

No appearance is required. The Court will issue its order selecting its five candidates for umpire on or before November 1, 2024. The parties shall file a joint statement setting forth their selected umpire on or before November 15, 2024. If no agreement is reached by that date, the Court will select an umpire from the five candidates selected by the Court.

6. CU0001434 Colin Otte vs. Lynne Walter, et al.

Defendant has filed a general demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract, the second cause of action for anticipatory breach of contract, the third cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the sixth cause of action for declaratory relief. The demurrer does not address the fourth cause of action for promissory estoppel or the fifth cause of action for unjust enrichment.

Defendant’s demurrer to the first, second, third, and sixth causes of action of Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the grant deed to the property is granted.

Meet and Confer Requirements

Preliminarily, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires the parties to meet and confer before incurring the time and expense of a demurrer. “As part of the meet and confer process, the demurring party shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies.” Code Civ Proc section 430.41(a). This section requires the demurring party to file and serve with the demurrer a declaration describing the parties’ meet and confer efforts or stating that the responding party failed to meet and confer. Id.

Defendant filed a declaration outlining the parties’ meet and confer efforts. This declaration complies with the meet and confer requirements of CCP section 430.41.

Legal Standard

A demurrer lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70. Thus, the only issue addressed by a demurrer is “whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; Accord McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 72, 79.

Defendant’s demurrer lies against the first cause of action for breach of contract, the second cause of action for anticipatory breach of contract, the third cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the sixth cause of action for declaratory relief. Specifically, defendant’s general demurrer argues that the facts pled fail to state these four causes of action.

Statute of Frauds

As it relates to this case, Civil Code section 1624 provides:

The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party

to be charged or by the party's agent:

An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within
a year from the making thereof.

* * *

(3) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year,

or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged,

is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed

by the party sought to be charged.

* * *

(6) An agreement by a purchaser of real property to pay an indebtedness secured by a mortgage or deed of trust upon the property purchased, unless assumption of the indebtedness by the purchaser is specifically provided for in the conveyance of the property.

The statute of frauds "demands that every material term of an agreement within its provisions be reduced to written form, whether the parties desire to do so or not." (Ellis v. Klaff, supra, 96 Cal. App. 2d at p. 476.) Thus, under the statute of frauds, the written agreement "serves only to prevent the contract from being unenforceable" (Hale v. Bohannon (1952) 38 Cal.2d 458, 465 [241 P.2d 4]); it does not necessarily establish the terms of the parties' contract. Indeed, the sole "object of the statute of frauds is to prevent perjured testimony in proof of purported contracts of important types, and the statute applies only to those enumerated types." Herrera v. Beydoun (2004) 32 Cal4th 336, 345.

The parties agree that the oral agreement alleged in the complaint falls within the purview of the statute of frauds. Its terms were to be performed by December 2025, five years, not within one year of its making in December 2020. It was an agreement for the sale of property and was also an agreement by plaintiff to pay an indebtedness secured by a mortgage with no assumption of that indebtedness specifically provided for in the conveyance of the property.

The parties agree that part performance is an exception to the statute of frauds. However, defendant argues that it does not apply to the facts of this case.

Part performance is a “well-recognized exception” to the statute of frauds as applied to contracts for the sale of real property. Part performance must “clearly relate to, and must be pursuant to, the terms of the oral agreement”. Sutton v. Warner (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 415, 422. For this exception to apply, the complaint must show that the “buyer has taken possession of the property and either makes a full or partial payment of the purchase price, or makes valuable and substantial improvements on the property, in reliance on the oral agreement." Id., at 422.

Defendant does not question plaintiff’s possession of the property. The question is whether plaintiff’s other actions are sufficiently related to the oral contract to constitute part performance.

The facts alleged in the complaint show that plaintiff has made partial payments to the purchase of the property, and defendant does not dispute those facts. Clearly, those payments, which include a $150,000 down payment, relate to the terms of the oral agreement.

Defendant argues that the improvements made by plaintiff were not related or pursuant to the oral agreement, which did not call for plaintiff to make any improvements to the property. The complaint confirms that plaintiff making improvements to the property was not a term of the oral agreement. Complaint, 3:8-21.

Plaintiff is not required to show that he made both payments and substantial improvements to the property in reliance on the oral agreement; he need only show one or the other, and the complaint does establish partial payments made by plaintiff pursuant to, and in reliance on, the terms of the oral agreement. He made a significant down payment and monthly payments towards the mortgage. Those payments, in conjunction with possession of the property, constitute part performance if they were made in reliance on the oral agreement.

Defendant argues that plaintiff stopped making payments, which establishes that he was not relying on the terms of the oral contract. However, according to the complaint, discussions surrounding payments also included discussions about other terms of the agreement; a buy-out if plaintiff became unable to acquire title to the property. Those facts do not suggest that plaintiff was not acting in reliance on the terms of the oral agreement.

Defendant shall file an answer to the complaint within ten days of notice of entry of order.

7. CL0001165 Victor Navarrete vs. Jennin Valentine Martinez, et al.

The renewed motion to be relieved as counsel filed by Bryan Hawkins is again denied. The motion was served on defendant Jennin Valentine Martinez and on plaintiff’s attorney less than 16 court days before the hearing. Mr. Hawkins’ declaration states that defendant JVM Landscape Construction, Inc. was served by mail, there is no proof of service to inform the court as to when service was made. While the proof of service as to defendant Martinez indicates he was personally served at his address on 79^th Avenue in Sacramento, the notice of motion provides an address on Alder Avenue in Camino.

October 14, 2024 Dept. A Probate Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

PR0000090 In Re the Matter of Michael Rafael Domingo

No appearance is required. Conservatorship is to continue. The conservatorship is still necessary, appropriate and 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 court investigation fee for this review is waived. A biennial review is set for October 12, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Department A.

TP00-0123 In Re the Matter of David H. Pluff

No appearance is required. Conservatorship is to continue. The conservatorship still

appears to be warranted. However, the court investigator expresses concern that the

Conservator, who has dementia, is unable to continue acting as conservator. On the

Court’s own motion, this matter is continued to November 25, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in Dept.

The court investigator shall communicate the status of this conservatorship to the Nevada County Public Guardian

forthwith and shall also make contact with Conservatee’s brother, Darren Pluff, to discuss his plans, if any, to petition to act as successor conservator. The court clerk shall provide a copy of this order via email to the investigator forthwith.

PR0000382 In Re the Matter of Aldo Padilla-Rodriguez

PR0000554 In the Matter of Auctaviah Marie Davis Rogers

No appearance is required. On the Court’s own motion, the hearing on the Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person is continued to November 25, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in Department A. The court investigator shall make contact with Nevada County Child Protective Services regarding the CPS histories of both temporary guardians and provide an updated report at least one week before the continued hearing.

PR0000590 In the Matter of Amado Gomez Jimenez

No appearance is required. On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the Petition

for Spousal Property is continued to November 25, 2024. Petitioner has not submitted

the previously ordered declaration establishing that the assets she seeks to have passed to

her completely are community property or quasi-community property OR a waiver of

interest signed by decedent's parents. Petitioner shall file said declaration at least one

week before the continued hearing.

PR0000599 In the Matter of Thomas Joseph Clarke

No appearance is required. The Petition to Administer the Estate of Thomas Joseph Clarke is granted as prayed. A proposed order and letters shall be submitted to the Court no later than October 21, 2024.

PR0000038 In the Matter of Theodore Mandrones

No appearance is required. The Court approves the request for amended orders including disbursement of assets.

Appearance required. The Court requires additional information in relation to the question of characterization of the property being sought to pass to the surviving spouse. If the property is community or quasi-community, the surviving spouse is entitled to 100% of the asset. However, if the property is the separate property of the decedent, the surviving spouse is only entitled to 50% of the asset as the decedent’s parents are still alive. See, Probate Code sections 6401 and 13050.

Judicial Branch of California

Tentative Rulings

Nevada City

Truckee

Was this helpful?

Tentative Rulings

Law & Motion

Probate

Case Management Conferences

Guardianships

Family Law

Case Management Conferences

Family Law

Law and Motion

Probate