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.
Court’s tentative rulings. In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309 by 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing. If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court. Any argument is limited to five (5) minutes per party, unless the Court determines additional argument time is needed. See California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.
Personal appearances are permitted. You may also appear via video by arranging a remote appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument.
Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not be able to provide court 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 COURT 3.1312 AND SHALL, THEREAFTER, PREPARE, FILE AND SERVE NOTICE OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF COURT.
4-25-25 Civil Tentative Rulings
- CU0000128 Douglas J. Schultz v. Marianne L. Stevenson, et al.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s further responses to discovery is denied without prejudice.
“[T]he trial court's discretion to hear [a party’s] motion to compel [is] governed by [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2024.020, which provide[s] that (1) the last day for [a party] to have its motion to compel heard as a matter of right [is 15 days before the date initially set for the trial of the action], and that (2) the postponement of the trial date d[oes] not ‘operate to reopen discovery proceedings’ ‘[e]xcept as provided in Section 2024.050’—that is, except upon a successful motion for leave to reopen discovery.” Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1587-1588.
Defendant contends that the initial trial date was December 10, 2024; plaintiff contends that the initial trial date was February 18, 2025. The court need not resolve that issue. If the court assumes, arguendo, that the initial trial date was February 18, 2025, the cutoff date for hearing any such motion was fifteen days prior thereto, i.e., February 3, 2025. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 5, 2025, nearly a month after the hearing cutoff date. The motion, thus, is untimely. See Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th at 1573, 1585 (“Ultimately the case was set for trial on November 14, 2005. That meant … the last day to have any discovery motion heard was October 31. … Pelton–Shepherd did not file its motion until December 6, and the hearing on the motion was not set, and did not occur, until January 11—nearly two and one-half months late. Thus, Delta is correct that the motion to compel was untimely.”).
Moreover, a trial court cannot consider a motion to compel under these circumstances without first determining whether discovery should be reopened. 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 … thereby abused its discretion.”). Here, no party has filed a motion to re-open discovery under section 2024.050.
The parties’ mutual requests for sanctions are denied. Based on the record presented, the court concludes that the imposition of sanctions against either party would be unjust.
- CU0000512 eCapital Asset Based Lending v. Medina, Nicole et al.
P21-16971 In the Matter of David Freeman
No appearances are required. Ruling regarding defendants’ November 12, 2024 motion for summary judgment is continued, on the court’s motion, to May 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. A written memorandum decision will likely issue in advance thereof.
- CU0001134 U-Haul Co. of California, et al. vs. Clifford Webb, et al.
Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for summary judgment against defendant Webb is granted.
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.
The court finds that plaintiffs have met their burden of persuasion that all elements of each cause of action can be established and have justified a judgment in their favor. See Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 850. Defendant has not opposed the motion and has not demonstrated the existence of a triable, material issue of fact. Indeed, “[w]ithout a separate statement of undisputed facts with references to supporting evidence… it is impossible … to demonstrate the existence of disputed facts.” Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 115.
Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment.
- CU0001438 Marika Smolensky vs. William Ganch, et al.
Plaintiff’s stipulated motion to file a first amended complaint is granted. Such amended complaint shall be served and filed within 10 court days after service of the signed order after hearing.
- CU0001715 William Neil v. County of Nevada, et al.
Defendant County’s demurrer to the second cause of action for negligence in the first amended complaint (FAC) is sustained.
The County is statutorily immune from liability for injuries to inmates pursuant to Government Code section 844.6. No liability can be imposed on a public entity for any injury to a prisoner resulting from an act of the prisoner himself, acts of other prisoners, acts of prison employees, or acts of prison invitees, whether committed negligently or willfully. See Lowman v. County of Los Angeles (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 613, 616. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to suggest that he falls within recognized exceptions to statutory immunity under either Government Code section 814 or 845.6.
All defendants’ demurrer to the third cause of action for the Bane Act violation in the FAC is sustained.
The Bane Act is codified in Civil Code section 52.1 and provides a cause of action “if a person . . . interferes . . . or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual . . . of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state.” Civ. Code § 52.1 (a) & (b). “To plead a cause of action under the Bane Act, the plaintiff must show ‘(1) intentional interference or attempted interference with a state or federal constitutional or legal right, and (2) the interference or attempted interference was by threats, intimidation or coercion.’ ” Wiley v. Kern High School Dist. (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 765, 774. Of note, “[s]peech is insufficient to establish the requisite threat for a violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, unless it includes the threat of violence.” Julian v. Mission Community Hospital (2017) 11 Cal. App. 5th 360; see also Civil Code section 52.1(k). Finally, “retaliation against prisoners for their exercise of [filing prison grievances] is itself a constitutional violation and prohibited as a matter of ‘clearly established law.’ ” See e.g., Rhodes v. Robinson (9th Cir. 2005) 408 F.3d 559, 566; Pratt v. Rowland (9th Cir. 1995) 65 F.3d 802, 806, fn. 4.
At bar, plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that any of the named correctional officers interfered or attempted to interfere with plaintiff’s ability to file grievances. Indeed, the FAC suggests that he fully availed himself of the grievance process on a number of occasions. In addition, the operative complaint is devoid of any factual allegations that defendants interfered or attempted to interfere with plaintiff’s rights by way of cognizable threats, intimidation or coercion. Finally, the FAC does not include any allegations that any statements by the corrections officers included a threat of violence.
“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.’ ” Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 970–971 (citation omitted). That said, “[t]he burden of demonstrating a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment ‘is squarely on the plaintiff.’ ” McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 78. In this case, there has been no specific showing by plaintiff that he can amend the complaint to correct these defects. Therefore, on this record, leave to amend is denied.
An answer to the remaining causes of action shall be filed and served within 10 court days of service of the signed order after hearing.
- CU0001849 Gregory Thrush vs. Jose Antonio Valdovinos
Defendant Valdovinos’ motion to set aside the default and default judgment is denied as moot. A stipulation to set aside the default was filed on April 9, 2025. The court notes that the answer must actually be filed with the court. Previously, the proposed answer was attached as an exhibit to the instant motion. The answer shall be separately filed by April 28, 2025 and, pursuant to the stipulation, will be deemed filed as of April 2, 2025.
- CU0001884 Ryan Christopher Crandell v. Serbian Mafia, et al.
Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is denied.
Firstly, there is no proof of service of the summons, complaint, or motion on the 15 named defendants in the complaint. See Code of Civil Procedure §§ 415.10, et. seq. and 1005(b). Thus, the motion is denied on procedural grounds.
Secondly, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood or possibility that he will prevail on the merits at trial. See Doe v. Regents of University of California (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 766, 773 (“Trial courts evaluate two interrelated factors in deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued. The moving party must prevail on both factors to obtain an injunction.”); Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678 (“A trial court may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim.”). Thus, the motion is denied on substantive grounds.
On the court’s motion, a case management conference is set for Monday, June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The clerk shall issue a case management conference notice. Plaintiff shall serve all defendants with such notice along with the summons and complaint.
4-18-25 Civil Tentative Rulings
1. CU0001651 Joseph Sacks vs. Navy Federal Credit Union
No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025. On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. No appearances are required on April 22, 2025.
Defendant’s demurrer is sustained with leave to amend in part, and sustained without leave to amend in part.
As for the causes of action for breach of contract and the implied covenant of fair dealing, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. The complaint alleges only that the amount of the FAIR Plan premiums did not appear on the closing disclosure. The closing disclosure is a separate document from the mortgage contract. “If the action is based on an alleged breach of a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written instrument must be attached and incorporated by reference.” Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 459. Plaintiff must attach a copy of the mortgage contract or provide all essential terms, and clearly state which terms of the contract were breached.
As for the causes of action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. “[A]s a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money.” Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096. Here, plaintiff must clearly allege what actions conducted by defendant exceeded the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money.
As for the cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. “The elements of negligent misrepresentation are ‘(1) the misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another’s reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting
damage.’” National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 35, 50. “Fraud allegations must be pled with more detail than other causes of action. The facts constituting the fraud, including every element of the cause of action, must be alleged factually and specifically. The objectives are to give the defendant notice of definite charges which can be intelligently met, and to permit the court to determine whether, on the facts pleaded, there is any foundation, prima facie at least, for the charge of fraud.” Apollo Capital Fund, LLC v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 240 (citations and quotations omitted). At bar, plaintiff has alleged in generic terms a claim for relief; however, he has failed to plead his claim with any level of particularity. For example, while plaintiff alleges that defendant misrepresented the monthly mortgage payment with no grounds to believe it was true, plaintiff does not assert any specific facts in support thereof. Plaintiff does not allege that defendant had any actual notice of the FAIR Plan disclosure prior to preparation of the closing disclosure, or otherwise allege why defendant lacked reasonable grounds to believe the monthly mortgage payment on the closing disclosure was inaccurate. While plaintiff alleges that he justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentation, he fails to plead such reliance with any level of particularity especially in light of plaintiff’s apparent awareness of the terms of the FAIR Plan insurance costs prior to signing the closing disclosure.
As for the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. “TILA, title 15 of the United States Code section 1601 et seq., and its accompanying regulations (Regulation Z), 12 Code of Federal Regulations part 226.1 et seq., require specific disclosures by businesses offering consumer credit (including mortgage loans). TILA's purpose is to ‘avoid the uninformed use of credit.’ 15 U.S.C. § 1601.” Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 244 (parentheses and date omitted). In a case such as this one, a creditor is obliged to provide a closing disclosure, containing all information required by § 1026.38(a)–(s), at least three business days before consummation of the loan. See 12 C.F.R. § 1026.19(f)(1)(ii). The disclosures should reflect the credit terms to which the parties are legally bound at the time of giving the disclosures. See Hauk v. JP Morgan Chase Bank United States, 552 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009). To sustain a cause of action under TILA, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a specific TILA provision. Monreal v. GMAC Mortg., LLC (S.D. Cal. 2013) 948 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1081-1082. The plaintiff must also establish detrimental reliance to recover actual damages. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1640(a); In re Ferrell (9th Cir. 2008) 539 F.3d 1186, 1192. Here, the instant complaint fails to allege which specific provisions of TILA were allegedly violated by Navy Federal and also fails to allege detrimental reliance.
As for the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claim, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff cannot sustain a cause of action under the CLRA because this transaction involves a mortgage, and mortgages are not goods or services subject to the CLRA. The CLRA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices … undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer….” Civ. Code, § 1770, subd. (a). California law is clear that a mortgage loan is not subject to the CLRA. Alborzian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 29, 40. Plaintiff’s reliance on two unreported federal cases to allege the CLRA should apply to mortgage loans is unavailing.
Any amended complaint shall be served and filed within 10 calendar days after service of the signed order after hearing.
2. CL0002603 Sims v. Mahoney
No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025. On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Appearances are required on April 22, 2025.
Argument will be heard regarding defendant’s motion to quash. Any opposition can be made orally at the time of the hearing. See Rules of Court, rule 3.1327(b).
Defendant’s demurrer is dropped. The demurrer was not timely filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). Any request for a hearing on shortened notice must be made in accordance with Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(d).
4-11-25 Civil Tentative Rulings
- CL0002443 Crystal MHC, LLC vs. Peter Munyan
Non-party Storer’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is denied.
Storer is not a named party. Based on the current record, it appears that plaintiff properly served a copy of the summons and complaint on the named defendant and all occupants of the premises. See Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 330, 336. To the extent that Storer contends he is entitled to remain in possession of the premises, he must file an appropriate claim of right to possession and follow the procedures set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.3. See, e.g., Crescent Capital Holdings, LLC v. Motiv8 Investments, LLC (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1.
A motion to quash is not an appropriate vehicle to challenge the adequacy of the complaint. See Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 402; Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 616. In any event, the complaint appears to plead adequately a cause of action for unlawful detainer, permissibly names doe defendants, and permissibly seeks damages associated with an unlawful detainer action.
- CU0000128 Douglas J. Schultz v. Marianne L. Stevenson, et al.
Defendant’s January 9, 2025 Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings
Defendant’s January 9, 2025 motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.
The motion is untimely and the court, in the exercise of discretion, declines to permit its late filing. See Code Civ. Proc. §438 (e); Sutherland v. City of Fort Bragg (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 13, 25, n. 4.
In addition or in the alternative, the motion lacks merit. The court has previously ruled, more than once, “Plaintiff and [d]efendant are not married and are not spouses. Accordingly, Civil Code section 872.210 does not bar the present action for partition.” See, e.g., Mar. 22, 2024 Memo. Dec. & Order. The court also previously ruled that “in the exercise of discretion, [the court] recognizes the Dubai divorce decree as it relates to the status of marriage only,” and that “Defendant has failed to establish how recognition of the judgment of divorce has or will prejudice her rights or violate California public policy.” Ibid. Lastly, contrary to the suggestion by the defense, the operative complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a partition cause of action against defendant. See Code of Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff’s September 18, 2024 Motion for Interlocutory Judgment of Partition
Plaintiff’s September 18, 2024 motion for interlocutory judgment of partition is granted.
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of recorded property records (Exhibits 1, 2, and 6) is granted. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of court records in this and other courts (Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8) is also granted.
Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Declarations
To the extent that the court indicates that it need not resolve an objection hereafter it means that given the disposition described infra, it did not have to resolve the objection.
The objections to the Diamond declaration are overruled as moot with one exception: the court need not resolve objection 14.
Objection 1 to the Griesbach declaration is overruled as moot; the court need not resolve any other remaining objections in connection with this declaration.
As for the Stevenson declaration, the court rules as follows with respect to the plaintiff’s objections on pp.1-6: Objections 1-12 and 28-29 are sustained; the court need not resolve objections 13-27, 30.
As for plaintiff’s objections on pp. 7-34 (which appears to include some duplicative numbering of objections from 16 to 30): Objections 16-25 are sustained; the court need not resolve any other remaining objections.
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice
The court need not resolve plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the Federal Aviation Administration registration, attached as Exhibit 1 (erroneously identified as Exhibit 6) to defendant’s opposition.
Partition
Civil Code §872.210 provides:
If the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to partition, it shall
make an interlocutory judgment that determines the interests of
the parties in the property and orders the partition of the property
and unless it is to be later determined the manner of partition.
A partition action may not be brought by a spouse in an action seeking partition of community or quasi-community property. Civil Code §872.210. That is not an issue in this case. Despite multiple efforts by defendant to invalidate it, this court has recognized the validity of the Dubai divorce between the parties, determined that the parties are no longer married and determined that plaintiff’s partition action is not barred by Civil Code §872.210.
“A co-owner of property has an absolute right to partition unless barred by a valid waiver.” LEG Investments v. Boxler (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 484, 493, citing Code Civ. Proc. § 872.710(b). An implied waiver may occur when the co-owners of the property agree to use it in a manner that is inconsistent with partition. See, e.g., Nazzisi v. Nazzisi (1962) 203 Cal. App. 2d 121 (property settlement agreement between divorced parties waived the wife’s right to partition).
In the instant case, it is undisputed that the parties took title to the subject property as joint tenants when they purchased it. See Schultz Decl. ¶ 3; RJN ¶ 1, Ex. 1; Def. Ans. ¶ 9. As such, either party has an absolute right to partition. Moreover, there is also no dispute that plaintiff did not waive his right to partition. Indeed, defendant makes no waiver argument at all in her opposition.
Defendant contends, however, that partition should be denied because plaintiff has unclean hands. Defendant makes numerous allegations of misconduct against plaintiff to demonstrate that plaintiff has unclean hands. For example, defendant alleges that plaintiff: 1) has been untruthful with the court as to his residency and military service; 2) has been unfaithful to his spouse; 3) initiated and completed a sham divorce proceeding in Dubai; 4) has been untruthful regarding his children and engaged in conduct to estrange them from defendant; 5) was absent during home construction, forcing defendant to make labor improvements to the property and forcing defendant to “prematurely cash out her 401K and investments to pay the mortgage”; 6) conspired with a caretaker friend on the property to create a marijuana grow and forced defendant to participate in the same; 7) used visitation as a weapon to limit time the parties’ children would be with defendant; 8) repeatedly threatened and attempted to have defendant arrested by reporting false crimes; 9) entered the subject property on various occasions in 2021 and 2022 to commit thefts of personal property; and 10) threatened and harassed defendant generally. Defendant also alleges 11) that she paid for 50% of the mortgage from April to October 2021 and paid almost $40,000 in connection with mortgage arrears in April 2021. The court, having carefully considered the record as a whole, is not persuaded.
“The doctrine of unclean hands prevents a party from obtaining either legal or equitable relief when that party has acted inequitably or with bad faith relative to the matter for which relief is sought.” People v. Wickham (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 232, 238 (italics added). However, “it is not every wrongful act nor even every fraud which prevents a suitor in equity from obtaining relief. The misconduct which brings the clean hands doctrine into operation must relate directly to the transaction concerning which the complaint is made, i.e., it must pertain to the very subject matter involved and affect the equitable relations between the litigants. Accordingly, relief is not denied because the plaintiff may have acted improperly in the past or because such prior misconduct may indirectly affect the problem before the court.” Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 728–729 (italics added).
The instant claim is for partition of real property and the controversy to be decided is whether an interlocutory judgment to partition the real property of the parties should issue. As for allegation 3, supra, this court has already concluded, following extensive briefing and argument, that the parties are divorced pursuant to the Dubai decision. The overwhelming majority of the other misconduct alleged by defendant (e.g., allegations 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, supra), even if assumed to be true, is wholly unrelated to the subject matter of the instant partition action. Even if some of the alleged misconduct is assumed true and considered to be tangentially related to the real property subject to dispute (e.g., allegations 5, 6, 9, 11, supra), defendant has failed to persuasively establish how any of that conduct pertains to the instant partition action and affects the equitable relations between the parties as to the property. It is undisputed that each party, by title, has a 50% interest in the property and neither has waived the same. That said, defendant has failed to persuasively establish how any of that purported misconduct, as a matter of fairness or equity, should affect either plaintiff’s unwaived right to partition in connection with his one-half interest in the property or defendant’s own unwaived right to partition in connection with her one-half interest in the property. In short, even assuming defendant engaged in numerous bad or wrongful acts, defendant has not established to the satisfaction of the court that plaintiff has acted inequitably or with bad faith relative to this real property partition matter for which he seeks relief. The showing made does not demonstrate that, as a matter of equity, plaintiff should be barred from obtaining any relief.
Thus, the court finds and concludes that the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the real property, and that both parties have a 50% interest in the same.
As a general matter, “[t]he court shall order that the property be divided among the parties in accordance with their interests in the property as determined in the interlocutory judgment.” Code Civ. Proc. § 872.810. However, “[n]otwithstanding Section 872.810, the court shall order that the property be sold and the proceeds be divided among the parties in accordance with their interests in the property” if, among other things, “[t]he court determines that, under the circumstances, sale and division of the proceeds would be more equitable than division of the property.” Code Civ. Proc. § 872.820.
Such is the case here. The parties both agree that the real property cannot be divided. See SAC ¶ 27 and Def. Ans. ¶ 27. The court agrees and determines that, under the circumstances, sale and division of the proceeds would be more equitable than division of the property.
Given the contentious nature of this litigation as displayed in the declarations and exhibits to this motion and others, a referee is clearly necessary and is in the interests of both parties. The referee will oversee the sale of the property and, among other things, render an accounting. See Civil Code §873.010 (allowing the court to determine the need and amount of a referee’s bond, set the referee’s compensation, instruct the referee, and require the referee to provide interim and final accountings).
In summary, plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory judgment of partition by sale and for appointment of a referee is granted.
Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the Court hereby appoints Matthew Taylor as referee.
The parties did not meet and confer successfully as to the proposed interlocutory judgment as directed. The court will issue an interlocutory judgment. Plaintiff shall provide the court clerk with a word format of plaintiff’s last proposed interlocutory judgment. See Feb. 18, 2025 Decl. of Shofner, Ex. E.
- CU0001190 Alice Branton, et al. vs. Zarlasht Fakiri, D.O., et al.
Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for relief from jury waiver is granted. “The court may, in its discretion upon just terms, allow a trial by jury although there may have been a waiver of a trial by jury.” Code Civ. Proc. §631(g). Here, relief for plaintiffs is warranted. The April 7, 2026, trial will be before a jury.
- CU0001521 Ramy Kaufler Eden vs. Sherali Gas Company, Inc.
Plaintiff’s motion to enter consent judgment is granted.
After a Prop. 65 matter is filed in court, its settlement requires court approval upon noticed motion. See Health & Saf. Code § 25249.7(f)(4).
The court may only approve the settlement if: (i) Any warning required by the settlement complies with Prop. 65; (ii) Any award of attorney’s fees provided by the settlement is reasonable under California law; and (iii) Any penalty amount provided by the settlement is reasonable based on the criteria set forth in Health and Safety Code section 25249.7(b)(2).
Health and Safety Code section 25249.6 prohibits businesses from exposing individuals to listed carcinogens “without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual.” Health & Saf. Code § 25249.6. Here, the consent judgment requires defendant to provide the “safe harbor” warning for service stations which mirrors the safe harbor warning set forth in the Code of Regulations. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 27, §
25600(a). As such, the warning complies with Prop. 65.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(10) permits the recovery of attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(10). A consent judgment is “a judgment entered by a court under the authority of, and in accordance with, the contractual agreement of the parties.” Norgart v. Upjohn (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 383, 400. Here, the parties have contracted, via the consent judgment, for the payment of attorneys’ fees.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 provides another basis for the court’s award of attorney’s fees in this matter. Such provision authorizes a court to award attorneys’ fees to a party in an action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if a significant benefit has been conferred on the public and the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement make the award appropriate. California Code of Regulation, title 11, section 3201 states that in a Prop. 65 case “alleging failure to warn, a settlement that provides for the giving of a clear and reasonable warning, where there had been no warning provided prior to the sixty-day notice, for an exposure that appears to require a warning, is presumed to confer a significant benefit on the public.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 3201(b)(1)
The court finds the stipulated attorney fee award of $19,000 to have conferred a significant public benefit and the amount to be reasonable.
In determining the reasonableness of a penalty, a court considers the following factors: (A) The nature and extent of the violation. (B) The number of, and severity of, the violations. (C) The economic effect of the penalty on the violator. (D) Whether the violator took good faith measures to comply with this chapter and the time these measures were taken. (E) The willfulness of the violator’s misconduct. (F) The deterrent effect that the imposition of the penalty would have on both the violator and the regulated community as a whole. (G) Any other factor that justice may require. Health & Saf. Code § 25249.7.
Here, the Court finds the penalty of $4,000 is reasonable. The failure to warn was moderate in nature in that only one service station failed to post the warning. Additionally, defendant is willing to remedy the failure to post the warning.
The motion to enter consent judgment is granted. All remaining trial and pre-trial dates are vacated.
5. CU0001613 Judith and Coleman Bowen v. Town of Truckee
The Town of Truckee (“Town”)’s 19 February 2025 demurrer to the first amended petition and complaint is sustained without leave to amend. The Town’s 19 February 2025 motion to strike is denied without prejudice as moot.
The court applies the well-established standards regarding a demurrer. See e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (a), (e), (f); Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 475, 477; Ellenberger v. Espinosa (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 947; Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 210, 225–226; Flying Dutchman Park, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1134.
The Town’s request for judicial notice is granted. The objections by petitioner thereto are overruled.
The Amended Petition/Complaint and All Claims
The Town demurs to the first amended petition and complaint (as well as each claim therein) arguing that: 1) The amended petition/complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e). 2) The Court has no jurisdiction over the subjects of the causes of action alleged in the petition/complaint. See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (a).
Petitioners allege the Town violated their right to conduct transient rentals by issuing an administrative citation and denying their appeal. See FAP ¶¶ 9, 11, 30–44, 49–105, 111–114. The Town argues, first, that petitioners had no vested right to operate short-term rentals. The court agrees that the petition/complaint is defective in this regard.
Petitioners do no[t] dispute that [the Town] may attempt to restrict short-term residential rentals of RVs in the Town of Truckee,” and assert only that they must be allowed to maintain their “lawful nonconforming use” or otherwise be paid compensation for a taking under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution. First Amd. Pet. and Comp. (FAP) ¶ 49. Per petitioners:
The Park was built in approximately 1960 prior to incorporation of the Town. Petitioners have owned the Park since approximately 2017. The historical use of the Property has always been short-term stays since 1960 as both a motel and mobilehome park using Recreational Vehicles (“RVs”) spaces permitted for mobilehomes. To be certain, the Park was previously named “Sunset Inn Motel and RV park” and used as a short-term rental property for both short term RV’s and short-term stays in the motel built on its site wherein those same motel units are still being used today as apartments. The Park has been operating via a conditional use permit (“CUP”) or as a legal nonconforming use for decades.
…
Petitioners believe they are operating as a legal non-confirming use, and not a CUP, because the property is in the General Commercial (referred to as “CG”) zoning district and that district does not even allow a mobilehome park or RV park whatsoever based on current Town of Truckee regulations with a CUP or not. … Thus, Respondent’s argument that that the zoning designation does not permit short-term RV rentals is a red herring since the Park itself is not permitted to operate whatsoever in such a zoning district under current regulations. … Again, this Property and mobilehome park has existed prior to the Town’s incorporation which would explain this legal non-conforming use status.
FAP ¶ 9 (italics supplied).
The Park has sixteen (16) RV’s in mobilehome spaces intended for short-term rentals (i.e. 30 days or less).
FAP ¶ 13.
Four of the sixteen RV’s at the Park have been used as short-term rentals for several years. Petitioners have always intended to eventually convert the remaining twelve (12) RV’s to short-term rentals. Petitioners have invested considerable capital, in excess of $5.6 million in purchasing and maintaining the sixteen (16) RVs as part of this short-term rental business model.
FAP ¶ 14 (italics supplied).
“A nonconforming use is one which lawfully existed prior to the effective date of the zoning restriction and which continued thereafter in nonconformity with the ordinance.” County of Sonoma v. Rex (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1289, 1297. “Nonuse is not a nonconforming use. This rule is consistent with the further rule that reuse may be prohibited when a nonconforming use is voluntarily abandoned.” Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach (1971) 6 Cal.3d 279, 286 (citation omitted); see Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 552 (“Nonuse is not a nonconforming use… and reuse may be prohibited if a nonconforming use has been voluntarily abandoned.”) “The burden is on the party asserting the right to a nonconforming use to show the lawful and continuing use in place at the time the new ordinance is enacted.” Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1534, 1561 (italics in original and added).
At present, petitioners have failed to allege that their nonconforming use is one that was both lawful and continuing at the time of the effective date of Ordinance 2023-12.
First, after the time of the 1993 incorporation of the Town of Truckee and adoption of its municipal code, the judicially noticeable facts suggest that petitioners’ property (located in an area zoned for general commercial) was never zoned for the specific use to which they put it. See City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418, 433 (“[W]here a particular use of land is not expressly enumerated in a city’s municipal code as constituting a permissible use, it follows that such use is impermissible.”); Truckee Municipal Code (“TMC”) TMC §§ 18.03.020, subd. (E) (“If a proposed use of land is not specifically listed… the use shall not be allowed”), 18.12.020 (definition of Commercial General), 18.12.030 (table identifying permitted uses), Town Exh. 1 (zoning map). Moreover, it appears that petitioners never obtained the required transient occupancy registration certificate. See TMC § 3.24.020.
Second, as for the time period prior to incorporation of the Town in 1993 and its municipal code, the FAP does not coherently allege facts demonstrating that transient rentals of single-family dwellings were lawful under then existing County of Nevada law, the Mobilehome Parks Act or Department of Housing and Community Development regulations. Moreover, and of great importance, the FAP does not set forth any specific facts to suggest that there was lawful and continuous nonconforming use from prior to 1993 until the effective date of Ordinance 2023-12. Indeed, the FAP specifically alleges, “Four of the sixteen RV’s at the Park have been used as short-term rentals for several years.” FAP ¶ 14 (italics supplied).
Petitioners have failed to state a claim for a valid noncoforming use. The demurrer to the amended petition/complaint is sustained on this ground.
The Town argues that petitioners failed to pay owed transient occupancy taxes (“TOT”), barring their claim. The court disagrees.
“A taxpayer ordinarily must pay a tax before commencing a court action to challenge the collection of the tax. This rule, commonly known as ‘pay first, litigate later,’ is well established and is based on a public policy reflected in the state Constitution, several statutes, and numerous court opinions.” Mojave Pistachios, LLC v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 605, 625, quoting County of Los Angeles v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1116. Of note, there are “several recognized exceptions to the ‘pay first’ rule. One arises when the tax ordinance being challenged provides for criminal penalties for failure to pay.” Mojave Pistachios, LLC, 99 Cal.App.5th at 628. “An infraction is a criminal matter.” People v. Simpson (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th Supp. 6, 9, citing Pen. Code, §§ 16, 19.6. Truckee Municipal Code section 3.24.140, under “Chapter 3.24 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX,” explicitly notes, “Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable by fine as determined by the Court.” Here, the town issued a citation and imposed a fine of $500.00.
The Town argues that petitioners never requested a hearing or appeal on the amount of their overdue TOT, failing to exhaust administrative remedies and depriving the Court of jurisdiction in connection therewith. The court agrees with respect to the 25 February 2024 tax lien associated with an assessment of approximately $27,000.
Exhaustion is jurisdictional. See California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Board (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1151, and an exhaustion requirement is inferred where procedural requirements “provide affirmative indications of the Legislature’s desire” that a public entity be allowed to consider, in the first instance, issues raised during that process. See Williams & Fickett v. County of Fresno (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1258, 1271. “[F]ailure to exhaust administrative remedies is a proper basis for demurrer.” Gupta v. Stanford University (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 407, 411. Chapter 3.24 of the Truckee Municipal Code provides a detailed procedure and timelines for challenging a TOT assessment, including a hearing before the tax administrator where the operator can present evidence and arguments, and provides for an administrative appeal to the Town Council. See TMC §§ 3.24.090; 3.24.100. Petitioners never requested a hearing or appeal on the amount of their overdue TOT as required within 10 days of the 25 January 2024 notice; as such, those amounts became “final and conclusive.” TMC § 3.24.090; Town Exhs. 7 and 12. The demurrer to the amended petition/complaint is sustained on this ground.
The Sixth Cause of Action
Petitioners’ sixth cause of action seeks a declaration the Town’s lien is void and petitioners may resume their rental operation. See FAP ¶¶ 111–114. However, because mandate relief is available here, declaratory relief is not. See Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 931, 951 & fn. 27; Mental Health Assn. in California v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 952, 959. “It is settled that an action for declaratory relief is not appropriate to review an administrative decision.” State of California v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 249. “Declaratory relief also cannot be joined with a writ of mandate reviewing an administrative determination.” City of Pasadena v. Cohen (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1467. The demurrer to this claim is sustained on this ground as well.
The Second Cause of Action
Petitioners’ second cause of action seeks a declaration the Town violated their due process rights under the California Constitution by failing to acknowledge petitioners have a vested right to conduct short term rentals on the property and damages related thereto. (FAP ¶¶ 69– 81.) As noted previously, because a writ of mandate is pled, declaratory relief is unavailable. In addition, the due process clause of the California Constitution does not provide a private cause of action for tort damages. See Katzberg v. Regents of University of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300, 326. The demurrer to this claim is sustained on this ground as well.
The Fourth Cause of Action
Petitioners’ fourth cause of action seeks a declaration that Ordinance 2023-12 is unconstitutional special legislation or a bill of attainder because it “attempt[s] to target only one of the ten registered mobilehome parks in Truckee (along with exempting at least one other mobilehome park and not Sunset Inn)….” FAP ¶ 96. Once again, because writ relief is available, no declaratory relief cause of action is available here. The demurrer to this claim is sustained on this ground as well.
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.’ ” Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 970–971 (citation omitted). 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.
In this case, there is has been no specific showing by petitioners that they can amend the petition/complaint to correct these defects. Moreover, petitioners have previously been afforded an opportunity to amend their pleading and the fundamental defect remains. Therefore, on this record, leave to amend is denied.
April 4, 2025 Civil Tentative Rulings
- CL0002037 Joseph Pryor v. Sergio Aguilar, Jr.
Defendant Aguilar’s February 24, 2025, motion to set aside the default and default judgment is denied.
Firstly, defendant, the moving party, has failed to file a notice of hearing for today’s hearing and proof that the motion has been served on plaintiff. See California Rules of Court, rules 3.110 and 3.1300; Code of Civil Procedure § 1005.
Secondly, this court no longer has jurisdiction to hear the present motion. “An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding” where “[t]he sole issue before the court is the right to possession.” Vasey v. California Dance Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 746-747. It follows that there is nothing left that the court must decide in an unlawful detainer action once possession of the property has been determined. Ibid.; see also Boyd v. Carter (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 11, n. 5 (“This summary unlawful detainer proceeding concerned the right to possession of the premises, a matter that is no longer in issue because the Carters were forcibly evicted. The judgment having been reversed, the parties remain free to litigate any claims for damages arising from their lease or landlord/tenant relationship.”). Here, the return on the writ of possession was executed on March 4, 2025, and filed March 7, 2025. As possession of the property has been restored to the plaintiff, relief is no longer available to the defendant in this unlawful detainer proceeding.
Accordingly, the motion to set aside default and default judgment is denied on both procedural and substantive grounds.
- CU0000591 Antonio De La Pena, et al. vs. Nevada Woods Apartments
Plaintiffs’ motion to strike and tax costs is granted in part and otherwise denied.
Plaintiffs’ motion to tax costs because of financial hardship is denied. “[Plaintiffs] cite[] no authority, and [the court is] aware of none, holding that the language of section 1033.5 allowing costs that are ‘reasonable in amount’ and ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation’ also confers authority for the court to analyze whether costs are reasonable based on the losing party's ability to pay.” LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1124–1125.
The motion to tax the credit card transaction fees of $13.75 and $28.05 is denied. These fees appear to be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(c).
The court accepts defendant’s concession to tax the two $45.00 “shipping and handling” charges. Postage fees are not permissible costs. The motion to tax these items is granted. See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(b)(3).
The motion to tax the two $75.00 “zoom” charges is granted. Zoom fees are similar to telephone charges, which are expressly not permitted. See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(b)(3).
The court accepts defendant’s concession to tax the late fee of $300.00. The motion to tax is granted as to this item.
The motion to tax the $294.00 in “court dispatch fees” is denied. These fees appear to be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation. See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(c).
- CU0000861 Patrick H. Dwyer vs. Dr. Andrea L. Harris, et al.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is continued on the court’s own motion to April 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff attempted to file the present motion on January 28, 2025; however, such filing was rejected by the clerk’s office due to an unavailable hearing date. Thereafter, on February 21, 2025, plaintiff re-noticed his motion. However, plaintiff seemingly did not file the memorandum of points and authorities or the separate statement. As such, the court’s file does not have all documents necessary to review the motion. Because the motion is opposed substantively, this court grants plaintiff permission to correct this issue. All documents related to the motion to compel further responses shall be filed by April 10, 2025.
- CU0000951 Everlie Dahlen vs. Mark Claydon, et al.
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Discovery is granted in part, and deferred in part pending argument.
As to item # 21, the request is moot. Plaintiff provided a further response after the present motion was filed.
As to item #22 and #23, the motion is granted. Plaintiff must produce all responsive documents under her control responsive to the request.
As to item #25, plaintiff shall verify whether she is pursuing a claim for severe emotional distress, treatment therefor from Joan Goddard, MFT, and resulting loss of income from such emotional distress, or withdrawing the same. If plaintiff is pursuing such a claim, the court will need further information from the parties to determine whether plaintiff has implicitly and partially waived her constitutional right of privacy in connection with all or a portion of the Goddard records. See Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.
The requests for sanctions for $1,800.00 are granted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010(e)(unmeritorious objection without substantial justification), (i)(failure to meet/confer), section 2023.050 (sanctions), 2031.310(h) (unsuccessful opposition without substantial justification or showing that the same would be unjust).
- CU0001723 Umpqua Bank vs. Joseph A. Miller, DMD, Inc., et al.
Umpqua Bank’s request for the court to expand the receivership to one for all purposes is granted.
The appointment of a receiver is a provisional equitable remedy. The receiver's role is to preserve the status quo between the parties while litigation is pending. See Southern California Sunbelt Developers, Inc. v. Banyan Limited Partnership (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 910, 925. “ ‘The receiver is but the hand of the court, to aid it in preserving and managing the property involved in the suit for the benefit of those to whom it may ultimately be determined to belong.’” Marsch v. Williams (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 238, 248 (citations omitted). A receivership is “ ‘an ancillary remedy which does not affect the ultimate outcome of the action.’ ” California Sunbelt Developers, Inc., 8 Cal.App.5th at 925.
Code of Civil Procedure section 564 generally sets forth the statutory circumstances under which a receiver can be appointed. Marsch, 23 Cal.App.4th at 248.
“The requirements of [section 564] are jurisdictional, and without a showing bringing the receiver within one of the subdivisions of that section the court's order appointing a receiver is void.” Turner v. Superior Court (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 804, 811. To invoke the authority of the court to appoint a receiver under section 564, a moving party must establish the jurisdictional requirement by a preponderance of the evidence. See Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 869, 873 (Under subdivision (b)(1), the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence a “joint interest with [the] defendant in the property; that the same was in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured, and that plaintiff's right to possession was probable.”) “ ‘Evidence to justify the appointment of a receiver may be presented “in the form of allegations in a complaint or other pleading, by affidavit or by testimony.” ’ ” Republic of China v. Chang (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 124, 132 (italics omitted).
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 564, a receiver can be appointed, inter alia, in the following cases:
(1) In an action … by a creditor to subject any property or fund to the creditor's claim …, on the application of the plaintiff, or of any party whose right to or interest in the property or fund, or the proceeds of the property or fund, is probable, and where it is shown that the property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured.
…
(6) Where a corporation is insolvent, or in imminent danger of insolvency, or has forfeited its corporate rights.
…
(9) In all other cases where necessary to preserve the property or rights of any party.
The court has considered the record as whole including all submissions by plaintiff, the current appointed receiver and defendants. The court is persuaded, on the record presented, that a receivership is warranted and necessary. Plaintiff has established by a preponderance of credible evidence that: (1) it has a probable right or interest in the property sought to be placed in receivership and that the property is in danger of destruction, removal or misappropriation; (2) the instant dentistry business is, at the very least, in imminent danger of insolvency; and (3) the instant dentistry business has defaulted on its loan obligations to plaintiff and contractually consented to the appointment of a receiver upon default. Defendants have not presented sufficient admissible, compelling or credible evidence to persuade the court otherwise.
- CU0001762 William Dean Ferreira vs. Stephanie Diane Stone-Ferreira, et al.
On the court’s motion, defendant Malone’s Anti-Slapp motion to strike is continued until May 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.in Dept. 6. Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition on March 28, 2025. Defendant Malone filed a reply thereto on April 1, 2025. The court has made no decision as to whether it will consider the untimely opposition. That said, defendant Malone is granted permission to file a supplemental reply addressing the merits no later than 10 court days prior to the scheduled hearing.
- CU0001788 Robert Tonnies v. Mark Gold
Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted in part.
Preliminarily, plaintiff filed an untimely opposition that does not contain proof of service on the defendant. In the court’s discretion, the court has read and considered the opposition.
As to the merits, Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.03 provides: “The prevailing party in an action brought under this section may be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees, if any.” (Italics added). This provision does not define “prevailing party.”
Courts interpreting similar provisions in the context of civil harassment petitions have looked to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 to define prevailing party. See Adler v. Vaicius (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1770, 1777 (“Since [Code of Civil Procedure] section 527.6 does not define “prevailing party,” the general definition of “prevailing party” in section 1032 may be used.”); Elster v. Friedman (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1443(same).
Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a)(4) provides: “ ‘Prevailing party’ includes ... a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” Any award of attorney’s fees is discretionary. See Krug v. Maschmeier (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 796, 802 (“decision whether to award attorney fees to a prevailing party—plaintiff or defendant—under section 527.6(i) is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court.”).
“Courts construing statutes that contain attorney fees provisions that do not define the term ‘prevailing party,’ . . . have adopted th[e] practical approach to determine the recoverability of attorney fees in pretrial voluntary dismissal cases.” Castro v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1020. “Under the practical approach, the court determines the prevailing party by analyzing which party realized its litigation objectives.” Id. at 1019; see, e.g., Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 614-23.
In the present case, the action was voluntarily dismissed by petitioner after respondent filed a detailed factual response in the companion case, CU0001791. The court concludes that respondent was the prevailing party that realized their litigation objectives.
Thus, the motion for attorney’s fees is granted. Reasonable fees are $1,837.50 (6.125 hours at $300.00 per hour).
8. CU0001791 Robert Tonnies v. Karen Nathanson
Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted in part.
Preliminarily, plaintiff filed an untimely opposition that does not contain proof of service on the defendant. In the court’s discretion, the court has read and considered the opposition.
As to the merits, Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.03 provides: “The prevailing party in an action brought under this section may be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees, if any.” (Italics added). This provision does not define “prevailing party.”
Courts interpreting similar provisions in the context of civil harassment petitions have looked to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 to define prevailing party. See Adler v. Vaicius (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1770, 1777 (“Since [Code of Civil Procedure] section 527.6 does not define “prevailing party,” the general definition of “prevailing party” in section 1032 may be used.”); Elster v. Friedman (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1443(same).
Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a)(4) provides: “ ‘Prevailing party’ includes ... a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” Any award of attorney’s fees is discretionary. See Krug v. Maschmeier (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 796, 802 (“decision whether to award attorney fees to a prevailing party—plaintiff or defendant—under section 527.6(i) is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court.”).
“Courts construing statutes that contain attorney fees provisions that do not define the term ‘prevailing party,’ . . . have adopted th[e] practical approach to determine the recoverability of attorney fees in pretrial voluntary dismissal cases.” Castro v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1020. “Under the practical approach, the court determines the prevailing party by analyzing which party realized its litigation objectives.” Id. at 1019; see, e.g., Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 614-23.
In the present case, the action was voluntarily dismissed by petitioner after respondent filed a detailed factual response. The court concludes that respondent was the prevailing party that realized its litigation objectives.
Thus, the motion for attorney’s fees is granted. Reasonable fees are $1,837.50 (6.125 hours at $300.00 per hour).
9. PR0000214 Estate of Mathew Jay Forrest
Ms. Tapella’s motion to be relieved as counsel is granted. This order shall become effective upon filing proof of service of the signed order after hearing on the client, Md. Akin. The court hereby sets a status hearing regarding representation for May 19, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Ms. Akin is ordered to appear. Ms. Tapella is directed to include such hearing date and order in her proposed order after hearing.
3-28-25 Civil Law & Motion Tentative Rulings
- CL0001166 GAYLORD SPURGEON, et al. vs. JOEL PEREZ, et al.
This tentative ruling is issued by Judge Horn (Ret.). If oral argument is requested, such oral argument shall be heard on Friday, March 28, 2025, at 10:00 am in Dept. 6.
Defendant Happy Daze’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The court notes that three defendants initially filed the present motion. However, as defendants Lemke and Perez have been dismissed, the case remains solely against defendant Happy Daze.
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.
Objections to Evidence
Defendants’ Objections to the Declaration of Robert Lemke are overruled in their entirety. Robert Lemke, as officer and manager has authority to testify as to the authentication of the business records.
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’ Objections are overruled in their entirety.
Factual Background
Plaintiffs purchased an RV from Defendant Happy Daze on September 17, 2016 for $26,000.00. Plaintiffs allege Defendant intentionally concealed a mechanical defect in the RV, which was not discovered until 2022.
Analysis
The sole cause of action in the complaint is for intentional misrepresentation. “The pleadings determine the issues to be addressed by a summary judgment motion … and the declarations filed in connection with such motion ‘must be directed to the issues raised by the pleadings.” (Knapp v. Doherty, (2004) 123 Cal. App. 4th 76, 84.) There is no cause of action set forth for negligent misrepresentation. Thus, Plaintiffs’ arguments in opposition to the motion relating to negligent misrepresentation are without merit.
To establish a claim for intentional misrepresentation under California Law, a plaintiff must prove each of the following elements, “(1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage.” (Aton Ctr., Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1245.) A misrepresentation is an assertion made by the defendant with the knowledge that it is or may be untrue. (Seeger v. Odell (1941) 18 Cal.2d 409, 414.)
Here, Plaintiffs have provided no evidence whatsoever that Defendant Happy Daze had knowledge of the falsity of any statements made. Further, there are no allegations of “‘false representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered.’ ” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974, quoting Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 55.)
Conclusion
Thus, the motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant shall prepare a proposed Judgment for this Court’s signature.
The CMC is dropped, as no trial date is necessary.
- CU0001024 WALTER NICHOLAS et al vs. FCA US, LLC
Plaintiffs’ February 25, 2025, motion to continue defendant’s summary judgment motion is granted for purposes of briefing only; it is denied for purposes of conducting further discovery.
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), provides:
If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.
“Given the high stakes involved in motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication, continuances under section 437c, subdivision (h), are virtually mandated upon a good faith showing by affidavit that a continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to justify opposition to the motion.” Braganza v. Albertson's LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 144, 152 (citation and quotations omitted.) “The affidavit is required to show that (1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain [or discover] these facts.” Ibid. (quotations omitted). Of note, “a party who seeks a continuance under section 437c, subdivision (h), must show why the discovery necessary to oppose the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication could not have been completed sooner, and accordingly requires the court to grant the continuance.” Id. at 156.
At bar, the motion for summary judgment was filed on December 19, 2024 and set for hearing on March 7, 2025. Defendant’s opposition was due on February 14, 2025. After the opposition was due, on February 20, 2025, plaintiffs filed their PMK notice of deposition set for March 4, 2025, which plaintiffs contend is essential to their claim for fraudulent inducement-concealment. Of note plaintiffs have made no showing whatsoever as to why this discovery could not have been initiated and completed in advance of their opposition deadline. On this record, plaintiffs have failed to exercise appropriate diligence in connection with the discovery at issue. Their request for a continuance to conduct discovery is denied. See, e.g., id. at 156 (affirming denial of continuance where plaintiff failed to show diligence in completing floor inspection and testing).
The summary judgment motion will be reset for hearing on May 16, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., the first available hearing date. The parties shall file their remaining briefs in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Trial shall be set at a case management conference calendared for June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
- CU0001845 MARK GOLD, et al. vs. ROBERT A. TONNIES, et al.
Defendants’ February 24, 2025, motion to dismiss is denied. Defendants have failed to include the following in connection with their motion, among other things: a notice of motion, see California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(a), a memorandum of points and authorities, see rule 3.1112(a)(3), and a proof of service. See Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b). Assuming, arguendo, that defendants’ motion to dismiss is a demurrer, defendants have not established that the various causes of action, as alleged, fail to state claims for relief.
3-21-25 Civil Tentative Rulings
- CL0002280 Ian Garfinkel v. KAF&F Properties LLC
Defendant Oreda Hagy’s January 17, 2025, motion to set aside the default and default judgment is denied.
Firstly, defendant, the moving party, has failed to file a notice of hearing for today’s hearing and proof that the motion has been served on plaintiff. See California Rules of Court, rules 3.110 and 3.1300; Code of Civil Procedure § 1005.
Secondly, this court no longer has jurisdiction to hear the present motion. “An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding” where “[t]he sole issue before the court is the right to possession.” Vasey v. California Dance Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 746-747. It follows that there is nothing left that the court must decide in an unlawful detainer action once possession of the property has been determined. Ibid.; see also Boyd v. Carter (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 11, n. 5 (“This summary unlawful detainer proceeding concerned the right to possession of the premises, a matter that is no longer in issue because the Carters were forcibly evicted. The judgment having been reversed, the parties remain free to litigate any claims for damages arising from their lease or landlord/tenant relationship.”). Here, the return on the writ of possession was executed on January 23, 2025 and filed January 29, 2025. As possession of the property has been restored to the plaintiff, relief is no longer available to the defendant in this unlawful detainer proceeding.
- CU0001309 Quinn Coburn vs. Daniel Marsh
Defendant’s February 21, 2025, motion for a stay is procedurally defective. Defendant, the moving party, has failed to file proof that the motion has been served on plaintiff. See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300; Code of Civil Procedure § 1005.
The court, on its own motion, continues the previously issued stay in connection with the December 19, 2024 writ of execution and amended writ of execution.
The court, on its own motion, directs the parties to show cause why the default, default judgment, abstract of judgment and writ of possession should not be set aside based on potential inadequate service of process.
The proof of service filed on April 15, 2024 indicates that defendant was served by personal delivery of the summons and complaint to defendant’s wife on April 12, 2024 without additional elaboration.
Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b) provides:
If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.
The parties shall address whether service has been properly effectuated under this statute.
Plaintiff shall file and serve his brief by April 4, 2025, noon. Defendant shall file and serve his brief by April 18, 2025. A hearing regarding the same is set for May 9, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6.
3. CU0001602 Stonecrest Acquisitions, LLC vs. County of Nevada
The January 22, 2025, demurrer to the first amended petition by the County of Nevada is sustained without leave to amend.
“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.
Carloss v. County of Alameda (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 116, 126–127, sets forth the general law with respect to the dispute at issue:
“The general revenue of a city and county is collected by a tax on all nonexempt real property within the jurisdiction of the taxing agency.” (5 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed.) § 11:158, p. 11–512.) Under the statute, tax on real property “is a lien against the property assessed.” (§ 2187.) If the tax is unpaid, a default is declared and tax-defaulted residential property may be sold after five years of delinquency. (§§ 3351-3352, 3361, subd. (a).) Tax-defaulted property is generally sold at public auction to the highest bidder. (§§ 3691, 3693.) The sale proceeds are used to pay taxes and costs. (§§ 3698.5, 4672, 4672.1, 4672.2, 4673, 4673.1.) Any excess in the sale proceeds is held in a trust fund and “parties of interest” in the property have one year to file a claim for the excess proceeds. (§§ 4674, 4675.) Unclaimed proceeds are transferred to the county general fund. (§ 4674.)
“[P]arties of interest and their order of priority are: [¶] (A) First, lienholders of record prior to the recordation of the tax deed to the purchaser in order of their priority. [¶] (B) Second, any person with title of record to all or any portion of the property prior to recordation of the tax deed to the purchaser.” ( § 4675, subd. (e)(1).)
Id. at 126-127 (italics added).
Critical to resolution of the instant dispute is the meaning of title of record.
“Title of record” is not defined in the statute or elsewhere in any California code. Title is generally understood to denote ownership or “the legal right to control and dispose of property” (Black's Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) p. 1522, col. 2) and “title of record” has been variously defined as “title as it appears in the public records after the deed is properly recorded” (id. at pp. 1523, col. 2, 1524, col. 1) or “[a] title to real estate, evidenced and provable by one or more conveyances or other instruments all of which are duly entered on the public land records” (Black's Law Dict. (5th ed. 1979) pp. 1145, col. 2, 1146, col. 1). “Any written ‘instrument’ that affects the title to or possession of real property” may be recorded (5 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 11:4, p. 11–21), including a grant deed, deed of trust and numerous other instruments (id., § 11:6). While a recorded grant deed may be the best evidence, there is no language in the statute specifying that only a recorded grant deed may establish “title of record.”
Id. at 127–128.
Of significance, however, “title of record may be established in the absence of a recorded grant deed.” Id. at 132. The standard is as follows:
“Title of record” must be proven, and a recorded grant deed will most often be the best and simplest form of evidence to establish that fact. But when for some reason the grant deed cannot be produced, that proof may consist of recorded instruments of various types, the assessor's records, and testimony that, as a whole, establishes that the claimant or the claimant's predecessor in interest held title of record immediately prior to the tax-default sale.
Id. at 130.
The county argues, among other things, that the petition fails because it does not allege any facts to show that petitioner is a party of interest entitled to claim excess proceeds from the tax sale. See Mot. at 6:13 et seq. Petitioner argues that the petition adequately alleges facts evidencing Stonecrest’s status as a party of interest, specifically as a person with title of record. See Opp. at 4:9 et seq. (specific allegations cited by Stonecrest as sufficient). The county has the more persuasive argument.
At bar, there is a significant defect that appears on the face of the amended pleading. There are no facts alleged that establish that petitioner/claimant held title of record immediately prior to the tax-default sale. Petitioner, of course, alleges that heirs (i.e., the children of John Robinson) to decedent William Robinson assigned their interests to petitioner via a contract and certain assignments. See Petition ¶ 10.e. Those documents, however, make clear that the heirs did not have marketable title to the property, that petitioner was only acquiring a potential future interest in the property, and that all parties recognized that petitioner could only obtain marketable title to the property once decedent’s estate was probated. See Petition, Ex. A (and Exs. 1-3 attached thereto). There are no allegations in the petition to suggest that the condition precedent in that contract was satisfied. There are no allegations that petitioner obtained title prior to the tax-default sale or that the heirs obtained title to the property prior to the tax-default sale. In order to allege that one is a person with title of record, as noted previously, there must be allegations that, as a whole, will establish that the claimant or the claimant’s predecessor in interest “held title of record immediately prior to the tax-default sale.” Carloss, 242 Cal.App.4th at 130. “Title is generally understood to denote ownership or ‘the legal right to control and dispose of property.’ ” Ibid. at 127. Here, there are insufficient allegations that either petitioner or petitioner’s predecessor in interest—the heirs—owned the property, or had a legal right to control or dispose of the property prior to the tax-default sale. There is no suggestion that the property was probated prior to the tax-default sale. Moreover, there is no allegation that any other potential lawful procedure for collection or transfer of real property was initiated under the Probate Code prior to the tax-default sale. A demurrer on this ground, thus, is well founded.
In addition, Revenue and Taxation Code section 4675(c), provides:
Any person or entity who in any way acts on behalf of, or in place of, any party of interest with respect to filing a claim for any excess proceeds shall submit proof with the claim that the amount and source of excess proceeds have been disclosed to the party of interest and that the party of interest has been advised of their right to file a claim for the excess proceeds on their own behalf directly with the county at no cost.
At bar, petitioner alleges that that the heirs assigned their interests in the subject property to petitioner. Petitioner, thus, claims to be acting “in place of” the heirs as a party of interest with respect to filing a claim for excess proceeds. Petitioner has failed to allege, however, that it has complied with the requirements of subsection (c), i.e., that it submitted proof with its claim that the amount and source of excess proceeds have been disclosed to the heirs and that the heirs have been advised of their right to file a claim for the excess proceeds on their own behalf directly with the county at no cost.
A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint states a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable probability the defect can be cured by amendment. See Seidler v. Municipal Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1233.
Petitioner has been afforded a previous opportunity to amend its petition and has failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the defects noted can be cured by amendment. Leave to amend is denied.
4. CU0001683 County of Nevada vs. Michael James Taylor
The February 23, 2025, demurrer to the cross-complaint by the County of Nevada is removed from calendar without prejudice. The court is in receipt of an apparent notice of stay from the bankruptcy court. It appears, however, that the bankruptcy filing may be incomplete and the case potentially subject to dismissal. The court continues the case management conference (CMC) to May 19, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. The parties shall update the court on the status of the bankruptcy in their CMC statements prior thereto. Should this case proceed, the county may re-notice its motion for hearing.
March 14, 2025 Civil Tentative Rulings
- CU0000284 Tod DuBois v. Scott Fetty, et al.
No appearances are required. At the request of the parties, the following motions are continued until May 2, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6 (the next available hearing date): plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to substitute the name of Defendant Rollins Lakeside Resort to Defendant Lake Life Resort, LLC, plaintiff’s motion for injunction directed at defendant Lake Life Resort, LLC, and plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.
- CU0000410 Taylor Strunk v. Stagecoach Motel, et al.
Defendants’ October 1, 2024, motion for monetary sanctions is granted; the motion for terminating sanctions is denied.
Request for Judicial Notice:
Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted in its entirety.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(e) provides:
If a party fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories,
the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an
issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction,
the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with
Section 2023.010).
Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(i) provides:
Except as provided in subdivision (j), if a party fails to obey an order compelling further response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
Monetary and terminating sanctions may also be imposed against a party who misuses the discovery process as defined by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030:
- Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.
- Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery.
- Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.
- Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made.
The imposition of a terminating sanction is typically not to be resorted to by the court as a first measure. See, e.g., Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1292 (terminating sanctions are justified by persistent and willful non-compliance in discovery]) see also Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1163 (repeated failure to respond combined with non-compliance with court order justifies imposition of terminating sanctions); McGinty v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 204, 210 (extreme sanctions are disfavored).
In evaluating the propriety of terminating sanctions, often described as the sanction of last resort, it has been held that “dismissal is a proper sanction to punish the failure to comply with a rule or an order only if the court's authority cannot be vindicated through the imposition of a less severe alternative.” Rail Services of America v. State Compensation Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal App 4th 323, 331; see Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 572-573 (trial court “erred in issuing terminating sanctions as the initial remedial measure without first attempting to compel compliance with its discovery orders by using lesser sanctions or by imposing evidentiary or issue sanctions”).
Moreover, where a motion to compel has been previously granted, “the sanction should not operate in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been completely favorable to his cause.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793.
In the instant action, the court finds that plaintiff’s conduct warrants the imposition of monetary sanctions. There is no substantial justification as to why defendants were forced to incur the time and expenses of two motions before plaintiffs finally served verified responses without objections.
Before the motions, plaintiffs failed to respond to discovery, served objections after defendants granted multiple extensions of time to serve responses, failed to meet and confer to attempt informal discovery dispute resolution, and failed to comply with the court’s order to serve discovery and pay monetary sanctions.
In the October 14, 2024, declaration, plaintiffs’ attorney informed the court that they lost contact with their clients between March and May 2024 but then indicated that contact was resumed in October 2024. As noted by defendants’ attorney, it is unclear from the declaration whether there was contact between May and October 2024 and there is no explanation as to the lack of contact when plaintiffs have resided at the same address for more than five years. In any event, failure on the part of clients to maintain contact with their counsel or vice versa does not constitute appropriate justification for the discovery lapses here.
Plaintiffs served the responses to defendants’ discovery requests on or about November 5, 2024. However, the circumstances set forth in the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion and declaration of plaintiffs’ attorney do not show circumstances that would make the imposition of monetary sanctions unjust. Therefore, plaintiffs and their attorneys are ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $1,740.50 in connection with the instant motion. The court confirms its previous order of sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,120.00. All sanctions must be paid within 30 days.
- CU0001651 Joseph Sacks vs. Navy Federal Credit Union
On the court’s motion, defendant’s demurrer is continued for hearing until April 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6.
Plaintiff alleges Navy Federal violated section 1026.38 of Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) by failing to disclose “accurate and complete financial information in the Closing Disclosure,” which resulted in “significant financial harm, including increased mortgage payments and insurance costs.” Comp. ¶¶ 38, 39.
Each party shall provide briefing of no more than three pages by no later than March 28, 2025 as to the following: (1) What are the elements of a cause of action for violation of TILA in general? (2) What are the elements of a cause of action for violation of section 1026.38 in particular?
- CU0001760 In the Matter of County of Nevada
The unopposed petition of the County of Nevada for an order to abate substandard building and appoint Richardson C. Griswold as receiver is granted as prayed except as noted herein.
Health and Safety Code section 17890.7 authorizes the court to appoint a receiver to oversee the rehabilitation of properties deemed to be substandard if the property owner fails to comply with an order or notice issued by a local agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.6 after a reasonable time.
In the instant action, petitioner has made a sufficient showing that the subject property is a danger to occupants and the surrounding community. Respondent was given more than a reasonable amount of time (13 years to be exact) to rehabilitate the subject property with no response.
A prevailing party is generally entitled to recover all costs of enforcement relating to the property, including its attorney fees, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 17980.7. The court denies without prejudice petitioner’s request that it presently be deemed the prevailing party entitled to recovery of costs of enforcement and attorney fees. Petitioner may file an appropriate noticed motion at the conclusion of the case if it seeks adjudication of the same.
- CU20-084697 Barbara Miller vs. Pamela Gorman
Plaintiff’s November 15, 2024, motion for new trial is denied.
There can be only one final judgment, and this judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties. See Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 304, citing Code Civ. Proc. § 577. Where there is an amended judgment, the nature and effect of the amended judgment (i.e., whether it or the original is the final judgment) depends on whether the amendment substantially changes the judgment. See Ellis v. Ellis (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 837, 842. Jurisdictional deadlines run from the actual final judgment. Ibid. Generally, where an amended judgment merely adds costs, attorney fees, and interest, the original judgment is not substantially changed, such that the original judgment is the final judgment. See Torres v. City of San Diego (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 214, 222.
There were two judgments entered in this case. The judgment entered on May 24, 2024, fully adjudicated all rights of the parties—it provided that plaintiff received a jury verdict award of $7,500, and defendant was entitled to costs, subject to a future determination, pursuant to a Section 998 offer. The judgment entered on November 4, 2024, simply added defendant’s costs. The subsequent judgment did not substantially modify the original judgment. The final judgment for purposes of the motion for a new trial, thus, was the original judgment entered on May 24, 2024.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 659 provides, in relevant part:
(a) The party intending to move for a new trial shall file with the clerk and serve upon each adverse party a notice of their intention to move for a new trial, … , either:
(1) After the decision is rendered and before the entry of judgment.
(2) Within 15 days of the date of serving notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5, or service upon them by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is earliest; ….
(Italics added).
Code of Civil Procedure section 660(c) provides, in relevant part:
[T]he power of the court to rule on a motion for a new trial shall expire 75 days after the
mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5 or 75 days after service on the moving party by any party
of written notice of entry of judgment, whichever is earlier, or if that notice
has not been given, 75 days after the filing of the first notice of intention to
move for a new trial. If the motion is not determined within the 75-day period,
or within that period as extended, the effect shall be a denial of the motion without further order of the court.
(Italics added).
These deadlines are jurisdictional. Smith v. Super. Ct. (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 434, 436; Maroney v. Iacobsohn (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 473, 481–483; Dodge v. Super. Ct. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 513, 518. “[A]n order granting a new trial is in excess of jurisdiction and void if, for example, it is made ... upon a notice of intention that is filed … too late …, or if the court purports to grant the motion after expiration of the statutory time for ruling.” Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 337 (citations omitted).
At bar, the final judgment was entered on May 24, 2024. Defendant served plaintiff notice of entry of that judgment on May 30, 2024. Plaintiff’s deadline to serve and file her intent to move for new trial was 15 days later, i.e., on June 14, 2024. Plaintiff did not file her intent to move for new trial until November 5, 2024. Thus, the notice of intention was untimely. In addition, the court’s deadline to rule on such a motion was 75 days later on August 13, 2024. The court has not yet ruled on the motion and could not do so after expiration of the statutory time for ruling.
In the alternative or in addition, assuming, arguendo, the second November 4, 2024, judgment was the final judgment, and plaintiff timely file her notice of intention on November 5, 2024, the court’s 75-day deadline to rule would have been January 21, 2025. Here again, the court has not yet ruled on the motion and could not do so after expiration of the statutory time for ruling.
The court lacks jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s motion for new trial. The motion is denied.
6. CU0001052 Frances Cesak v. Lake Wildwood Association
Defendant Lake Wildwood Association (LWA)’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
Standard of Review
The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843. In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings to be addressed; (2) determine whether moving party showed facts justifying a judgment in movant's favor; and (3) determine whether the opposing party demonstrated the existence of a triable, material issue of fact. See Wellsfry v. Ocean Colony Partners, LLC (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1075, 1084; Sun v. City of Oakland (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1182-83; McGarry v. Sax (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 983, 994; Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 289, 294.
Factual Background
While plaintiff was driving her golf cart on defendant LWA premises, the golf cart frame caught on an unmarked tree stump and plaintiff’s golf cart came to an abrupt stop. Plaintiff was forcefully ejected from the cart and thrown through the air causing serious injuries.
There are two causes of action set forth in the complaint: general negligence and premises liability.
Assumption of the Risk Doctrine
The law applicable to the instant dispute is well summarized in Wellsfry v. Ocean Colony Partners, LLC (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1075:
“[P]articipation in an active sport is governed by primary assumption of risk, and a defendant owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff against risks inherent in the sport.” [Citation]. “When the risks are inherent, the defendant does not have a ‘duty to protect the plaintiff from those risks [citation] or to take steps to reduce those risks.’ ” [Citation]. Nonetheless, the courts have held that “[i]n any case in which the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies,” the owners and operators of sports venues owe participants “a duty ‘not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity.’ [Citation.] [And,] owners and operators of sports venues ... have an additional duty to undertake reasonable steps or measures to protect their customers’ ... safety—if they can do so without altering the nature of the sport ... .” [Citation].
Id. at 1085–1086 (citations and parentheticals omitted; italics added).
Our Supreme Court has held that the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to golf played on an outdoor course. [Citation]. The open question is whether the inherent risk of playing golf on an outdoor course includes risks associated with the topographical features of the course. We find it does.
Golf is a sport whose object is for players to use special clubs to hit a small ball over lengthy distances and ultimately into a hole in the ground surface. When golf is played outdoors, it is common knowledge that the game does not use a “standardized playing area,” but rather takes place on the varied natural terrain of the ground surface of the course. Because each golf course is unique, golfers can reasonably expect to encounter myriad variations in the ground surface and obstacles as they traverse a golf course. [Citation]. As explained by OCP's Director of Maintenance and Superintendent Daniel Miller, “[t]he type of grass used, such as Bermuda, Bentgrass, Zoysia, Poa Annua, or Ryegrass, the presence or absence of trees, bushes, roots, holes, protuberances, furrows, gouges, rocks, acorns, seeds, and other conditions of the terrain, can and regularly do affect the golfer's experience, both in terms of how the ball interacts with the terrain and in the color, density, and the overall appearance of the terrain and the feel and atmosphere of the course.” Hence, the ground surface of a golf course “establishes a significant portion of the challenge and atmosphere of golf and constitutes the interface between the golfer ... and nature that is part of the gestalt of golf.”
We therefore conclude one who plays golf on an outdoor course assumes those risks associated with the topographical features of the course.
Id. at 1086 (citations and parentheticals omitted).
At bar, defendant asserts that “the common law doctrine of assumption of risk negates the liability of a defendant to a plaintiff engaged in playing golf on defendant’s property.” Defendant, however, has failed to meet its initial burden of showing that (1) its maintenance of the golf course had not increased the risk of injury beyond that inherent in the risk of playing golf, and (2) it had not failed to take reasonable steps to minimize the risk of injury that would not have altered the fundamental nature of the sport. Compare with id. at 1089. In the alternative, there are material disputed issues of fact related to the same. See Plaintiff’s Additional Material Facts Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10.
Express Release of Liability
California case law provides that under the doctrine of express assumption of risk, a signed waiver of liability may release liability for negligence. See, e.g., City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747, 777 (2007).
Plaintiff had been a member of the Wildwood mutual benefit association for at least 10 years prior to her accident on July 28, 2022. In June of 2022, she signed an annual Public Unlimited Golf Package Agreement (“PUP”). The PUP Plaintiff signed included a release of liability against Wildwood for negligence, as well as a statement that Plaintiff assumed the risk of personal injury in return for the privilege of using Wildwood’s facilities.
Section 8 of the PUP provides as follows:
Assumption of Risk: “In consideration for the privilege of using LWA [“Wildwood”] facilities, each person entering upon or using LWA facilities agrees: (a) To accept all risks associated with the use of LWA facilities and to release LWA from and indemnify and defend LWA against any and all claims arising out of or in any way connected with such use of LWA facilities, except to the extent directly resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the LWA or its employees…”
“With respect to the question of express waiver, the legal issue is not whether the particular risk of injury appellant suffered is inherent in the recreational activity to which the Release applies [citations], but simply the scope of the Release.” Hass v. RhodyCo Productions (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 11, 27 (citation and quotation omitted). In the case at bar “reading the [release in question] as a whole—as would an ordinary person untrained in the law—[this court is] convinced it expresses [plaintiff’s] intent to assume all risks arising from [her use of LWA facilities and its golf course], including any risks related to [defendant’s] negligence.” Ibid.
Of note, “[e]ven if [a] Release [is] sufficient to block a claim for ordinary negligence …it is insufficient, as a matter of public policy, to preclude liability for gross negligence.” Id. at 31.
“[I]t cannot be said that the Complaint [herein]—which does not even mention the [release in question]—anticipated the [r]elease defense or raised gross negligence as a material issue which [defendant] was required to refute in order to succeed on summary judgment.” Id. at 33. “Instead, [defendant] met its initial burden by producing evidence of the existence of the [release in question] and its execution by [plaintiff]. The burden then shifted to the [plaintiff] to raise a triable issue of material fact as to gross negligence.” Ibid.
In its opposition, plaintiff does not argue that defendant was grossly negligent and does not point the court to any facts that she believes create a material dispute as to the same. On this record, thus, defendant is entitled to summary judgment based on plaintiff’s express assumption of the risk.Defendant’s motion is granted.
These are the Court’s tentative rulings. In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309 by 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing. If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court. Any argument is limited to five (5) minutes per party, unless the Court determines additional argument time is needed. See California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.
Personal appearances are permitted. You may also appear via video by arranging a remote appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument.
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.
April 25, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings
- P07-14542 In the Matter of Michael A. Powers, et al.
No appearances are required. The court continues this case to June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The 16th account and report from trustee shall be filed no later than May 23, 2025. Trustee shall provide notice of the continued hearing.
- P19-16469 In the Matter of Roland Vieira
No appearances are required. The court continues this case to June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court has not received the investigation review report. The court investigator shall file the investigation review report no later than June 6, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice to the court investigator.
- PR0000342 In the Matter of the Estate of Luther Taylor
No appearances are required. The petition for an order confirming expenses of administration and application of remaining proceeds from sale in regard to priority of debts is granted as set forth in the amended prayer for relief, item 2. See Petitioner’s Reply at 9:11-14. The court finds good cause for the order under applicable law and is not persuaded by any of the arguments to the contrary by Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC.
- PR0000469 In the Matter of Sandra Eileen Gilbert
No appearances are required. The first and final report of status of administration and petition for settlement of estate, approval of account, allowance of statutory compensation and final distribution is granted as prayed.
- PR0000478 Conservatorship of Mark. F. Miller
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report. On its own motion, the court continues this matter for receipt of the report to June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigator shall file the investigation review report no later than June 6, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice to the court investigator.
- PR0000484 Conservatorship of Raymond Poquette
No appearances are required. The petitioner for attorney fees is granted as prayed.
- PR0000493 In the Matter of Walter T. Branson
No appearances are required. The motion by counsel Haas to be relieved from representing Ms. Branson is granted effective filing of a proof of service on the client.
- PR0000664 In the Matter of the Dennis W. Babson 2000 Trust
No appearances are required. A request for dismissal with prejudice has been entered as requested.
- PR0000665 In the Matter of Faith and Hope Cline
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation report. On its own motion, the court continues this matter for receipt of the report to June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide notice to the court investigator.
- PR0000668 In the Matter of Sage Marie Davis Da Rosa
Appearances are required. The petition is granted in part as follows: The 401 K proceeds totaling $70,000 shall be placed in a beneficiary account within 5 court days and proof of the same filed within 10 court days. The request for reimbursement is granted. The request for prospective support is denied. No good cause has been demonstrated for support for an indefinite period in indeterminate amounts. The court is favorably inclined to authorize investment of funds in a 529 plan so long as it is advised of a reasonable, determinate amount. - PR0000725 In the Matter of Deborah Pyle
No appearances are required. The petition is granted as prayed.
- PR0000728 In the Matter of John Bruce Bianchi
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the petition to administer estate is continued to June 27, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. No original will was filed with the court as required. See Local Rule 8.06. Additionally, it is unclear why the named executors in the will are unavailable to administer the estate. Lastly, bond seemingly is not waived under the will unless one of the named executors is appointed. Petitioner shall submit a supplemental declaration addressing these issues no later than 10 court days prior to the next hearing.
- PR0000733 In the Matter of Lou J. Schiavone
Appearances are not required. The court grants the unopposed petition to compel information and accounting by trustee in part, namely, requests for relief 1.c. (assets), 1.d. (compensation) and 2 (accounting). The accounting and information requested shall be filed and served no later than June 26, 2025. A hearing regarding the same is set for July 25, 2025. The court denies, without prejudice, requests 1.a. (financial records) and 1.b. (real property records). The moving party shall give notice.
- PR0000734 Estate of Virginia Bauch
No appearances are required. The petition is granted as prayed.
- PR0000735 In the Matter of Esther L. Morales
No appearances are required. The trustee’s petition for termination is granted as prayed.
- PR0000737 In the Matter of Benny Lee Riding
No appearances are required. The petition is granted as prayed.
April 18, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings
- PR0000614 In the Matter of Nyialong Steve Yang
No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025. On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.No appearances are required on April 22, 2025. The amended petition to administer the estate of Nyialong Steve Yang is granted as prayed.
- PR0000643 In the Matter of Thomas C. Norton
No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025. On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.No appearances are required on April 22, 2025. The petition for the allowance of court appointed attorney fees and to be relieved as counsel are granted as prayed.
- PR0000736 In the Matter of Rollin Wayne Shively
No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025. On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.No appearances are required on April 22, 2025. The court continues this matter to May 30, 2025, to permit the petitioner additional time to provide notice to Rhonda Ceritelli. Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued date.
April 11, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings
- P17-16181 In the Matter of Andrew Joseph Graybill
Appearances are required. Conservator shall clarify when he intends to return to Nevada County, and why a change of venue to Yuba County would not be in the best interest of the conservatee.
- P22-16995 In the Matter of Phyllis Graham
No appearances are required. On the Court’s motion, the review hearing is continued to May 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. An order to show cause hearing is set for the same date and time for Conservators Shelley Gutierrez and Phillip Graham to show cause for their failure to file a final accounting as ordered by the court on February 28, 2025.
- P94-11921 In the Matter of Korie Alison Rekers, et al.
No appearances are required. The accounting and requested fees are approved as prayed.
- PR0000572 In the Matter of Arthur Carl Bern
No appearances are required. The petition for settlement of first and final account and final distribution and allowance of statutory compensation to attorney is granted as prayed.
- PR0000580 In the Matter of Christopher Levas
No appearances are required. The court has received the request for dismissal and the proposed order approving trustee’s first account. The court will approve the order based on the settlement of the parties.
- PR0000634 Estate of Alan Bernard
No appearances are required. Petitioner has submitted an amended proof of service but it does not indicate that notice of the continued date was provided. Additionally, a corrected or new DE-120 was not filed. As such, the court continues this matter to May 30, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner shall ensure the petition, proposed order and notice of hearing are served on all required parties and shall submit a proof of service (DE-120) indicating the same. Petitioner is referred to the Nevada County Superior Court’s Self-Help Center for information if needed.
- PR0000655 In the Matter of Willah Brave Barlow Dunwody
Appearances are required. Counsel James shall show cause for her failure to appear on February 28, 2025. Additionally, the court still needs an update on the status of the final distribution from Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STPB11927 as well as proof that a court-blocked blocked account has been opened.
- PR0000667 In the Matter of Cynthia E. Dell
Appearances are required. The parties shall meet, confer, and be prepared to select a hearing date on the petition for instructions. Additionally, the parties shall advise if this matter is related to PR0000716 - In the Matter of William J. Hemby.
- PR0000690 In the Matter of Fred G. Dean-Turner
No appearances are required. The court on its own motion continues this matter to May 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court appoints Valerie Logsdon Esq., to represent proposed conservatee. The clerk shall provide notice to Ms. Logsdon.
- PR0000716 In the Matter of William J. Hemby
Appearances are required. The court notes that a copy of the will has not been filed which is required by Local Rule 8.06. Moreover, it is unclear whether the will is self-proving or whether there is proof of a subscribing witness. Additionally, petitioner shall advise if this matter is related to PR0000667- In the Matter of Cynthia E. Dell. The petition will be continued for hearing to another date to be announced.
- PR0000729 In the Matter of Elberta Jean Cain
No appearances are required. The petition to administer the estate is granted as prayed.
- PR0000732 In the Matter of Virginia Logan Umstead-Jones
No appearances are required. The petition to administer the estate is granted as prayed.
April 4, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings
- P09-14943 In the Matter of SEAN KRULISKY
Appearances are required. On January 31, 2025, conservators were ordered to file a written update with respect to the conservatorship by March 28, 2025. No update has been filed with the court. The conservators shall explain their failure to follow the court’s prior order, as well as whether the conservatorship will continue, transfer to Missouri or terminate.
- P11-15177 In the Matter of PHILLIP T KRULISKY
Appearances are required. On January 31, 2025, conservators were ordered to file a written update with respect to the conservatorship by March 28, 2025. No update has been filed with the court. The conservators shall explain their failure to follow the court’s prior order, as well as whether the conservatorship will continue or terminate.
- P15-15866 In the Matter of CHRISTIAN VIXIE
No appearances are required. The conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted. The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next biennial review is set for February 12, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.
- PR0000195 In the Matter of ALEKSEI D. DIX
No appearances are required. The conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted. The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next biennial review is set for April 2, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this annual review is waived.
- PR0000425 Estate of HANS J. LILLER
No appearances are required. The petition for final distribution is granted as prayed.
- PR0000596 In the Matter of GABRIEL KULP
No appearances are required. The petition for instructions is granted as prayed.
- PR0000672 In the Matter of EARLENE TANKERSLEY
Appearances are required. The parties shall be prepared to select dates for hearing on the competing petitions to administer the estate of Earlene Tankersley. Ms. Bond shall immediately give notice to the Attorney General of her petition to administer as it appears to involve a devise for charitable purposes. See Probate Code section 8111. The court notes an error in the February 7, 2025 minutes, which shall be corrected. The court deferred taking action on Ms. Massey’s petition for letters of administration filed on February 7, 2025. Ms. Massey shall confirm whether that petition has been withdrawn in light of the February 19, 2025, petition by Ms. Bond.
- PR0000688 In the Matter of JAMES D. BRUMM
Appearances are required. The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of mediation and selection of hearing date(s) if necessary.
- PR0000719 In the Matter of JEFFREY STEPHENSON
No appearances are required. The court is favorably inclined to grant the petition to appoint successor conservator. However, the court is not in receipt of the court investigator’s report. The court continues this matter to May 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for receipt of report. The clerk shall provide notice to Quest Investigative Services.
- PR0000721 In the Matter of BRISAN MICHAEL LEE BANKS
No appearances are required. The petition to administer estate is granted as prayed.
- PR0000724 In the Matter of CARTER E. REDDING, JR.
No appearances are required. The petition to administer estate is granted as prayed.
- PR0000726 In the Matter of RICHARD SAMUEL BARTHOLOMEW
Appearances are required. There are apparently competing petitions to administer. The court is not in receipt of petitioner Lipski-Mosher’s notice or proof of service (DE-121), proof of publication, or signed duties and liabilities (DE-147). As such, it appears that this petition is incomplete. The parties shall update the court on the current status of their requested petitions and be prepared to set a hearing.
March 28, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings
- P17-16154 In the Matter of Dawn Delange
Appearances are required by conservators and counsel for conservatee. The court has reviewed the March 14, 2025, report of counsel for the conservatee including the report that conservatee has stabilized. The conservatorship of the person shall continue. The court, on its own motion, advances biennial review previously set for January 8, 2027, to January 5, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Conservators and/or counsel for conservatee shall immediately advise the court if conservatee’s condition deteriorates and further powers are necessary to manage the same. A copy of the minutes shall be served on the court investigator, conservator and counsel for conservatee.
- P17-16234 In the Matter of Joseph Ruscica
No appearances are required. The conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted. The conservators are acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next biennial review is set for February 5, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.
- P19-16493 In the Matter of Simon Cruickshank, et al.
No appearances are required. The court approves the seventh accounting and report of the Thelma P. Cruikshank Revocable Trust and all acts of Simon Cruikshank as trustee.
- P21-16907 In the Matter of Susan E. Walima
No appearances are required. The conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted. The conservators are acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next biennial review is set for February 5, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. It appears that the conservatee’s estate has sufficient assets for purposes of the court investigator assessment, which shall be paid by the estate forthwith. A proposed order shall be submitted by the investigator.
- PR0000202 In the Matter of Catherine Mendenhall
No appearances are required. The petition for final distribution on approval of account and for payment of administrator and attorney fees is granted as prayed.
- PR0000326 In the Matter of Jamie Dickerson
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report for purposes of annual review. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to May 30, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for receipt of the report. The court notes that an annual accounting is overdue. Conservator Heidi Conservator shall file the same, with appropriate notice and service, within 30 days, for hearing on May 30, 2025. A copy of the minutes shall be served on conservator Heidi Dickerson and the court investigator.
- PR0000426 In the Matter of Renee S. Marshall
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report for purposes of annual review. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to June 6, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for receipt of the report. The court notes that an annual accounting is overdue. Conservator Steven Marshall shall file the same, with appropriate notice and service, within 30 days, for hearing on June 6, 2025. A copy of the minutes shall be served on conservator Steven Marshall and the court investigator.
- PR0000439 Estate of Kathleen Alexander
Appearances are required. All powers of trustee Lynn Anthony are suspended except as noted herein. Trustee Anthony is specifically prohibited from taking any action in connection with the disposition of any trust asset or liability. Trustee Anthony shall file and serve the accounting submitted as part of her March 24, 2025, declaration on all required parties along with a notice of hearing. A hearing is now calendared for May 1, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Petitioner Worth shall file her position regarding the accounting no later than 10 court days prior to the hearing. The February 7, 2025, order to show cause regarding removal of trustee Anthony is continued to May 1, 2025. Trustee Anthony shall file her response to the specific contentions of petitioner Worth in Worth’s March 11, 2024 response to order to show cause no later than 10 court days prior to the hearing.
- PR0000614 In the Matter of Nyialong Steve Yang
No appearances are required. The court on its own motion continues this matter to April 18, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner shall file a signed acknowledgment of duties (DE-147) prior to the continued court date.
- PR0000638 In the Matter of William Aguilar
No appearances are required. The court continues this matter to May 23, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to provide the parties additional time to engage in mediation. The parties are ordered to provide a joint status report regarding mediation no later than one week before the next hearing date.
- PR0000681 In the Matter of Patricia Melia Paddock
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the petition to administer estate to April 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court notes that the proof of service (DE-121) has not been completed. If service was previously effectuated, petitioner shall file proof of the same and give notice of the continued hearing date to all parties. Otherwise, petitioner shall file and serve notice of the hearing for the new date.
- PR0000722 Estate of Anthony B. Rohl
No appearances are required. The petition to administer estate is granted as prayed. Letters shall issue.
March 21, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings
- CU0001798 Sheldon Lynn Thompson v. Christina Joy Callahan
No appearances are required. This matter was improvidently set for hearing on March 21, 2025. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or request for dismissal not later than one week before the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
- P11-15182 In the Matter of Jacquelyn Munoz
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to May 9, 2025. Conservator shall serve petition, and provide proof of the same, on all parties referenced in the petition pursuant to Prob. Code sections 2352 and 1822.
- P12-15334 In the Matter of Helen Powell
No appearances are required. The court has not received a status report from the court investigator or the conservator. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to May 9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, for receipt of a report from both the investigator and conservator. A copy of the March 21, 2025 minutes as well as the court’s previous September 20, 2024 minutes shall be provided to the court investigator and conservator.
- P15-15875 In the Matter of Sharon Beatty
Appearances are required. The court has reviewed the March 12, 2025 status report of Ms. Greeninger. The parties shall update the court on the status of settlement. In the event no settlement has been reached, parties shall be prepared to inform the court on the legal issues involving the contested income tax return dispute.
- P18-16383 In the Matter of Margaret Vinther Copeland Special Needs Trust, et al.
No appearances are required. The petition for settlement of first account/report of trustee is granted as prayed. Additionally, the request to exempt future accountings is granted pursuant to Prob. Code section 2628.
- P21-16866 In the Matter of Wilhelm Disselhoff
No appearances are required. The court is in receipt of the notice of death of the conservatee. On its own motion, the court continues the review hearing to May 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Conservator is directed to file and serve a final accounting for hearing on the same date.
- PR0000069 In the Matter of Tracy Freeman
On the court’s motion, this matter is continued until 10:00 a.m., as part of the regular law and motion calendar.
Nicole Medina and Mitchell Freeman’s unopposed January 28, 2025, motion to intervene in the probate action (PR0000069) is granted. These individuals claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and they are so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede their ability to protect that interest. See Code of Civil Procedure section 387(d)(1).
Medina and Freeman’s January 28, 2025, motion to expunge lis pendens is granted.
“A lis pendens is a recorded document giving constructive notice that an action has been filed affecting title to or right to possession of the real property described in the notice.” Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647.
“The Supreme Court outlined the law governing the statutory scheme pertaining to the recording of a lis pendens and the procedure applicable to expunging an improperly recorded notice in Kirkeby v. Superior Court of Orange County (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647[.]” Campbell v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 904, 911.
“A lis pendens may be filed by any party in an action who asserts a ‘real property claim.’ Code of Civ. Proc. § 405.20. Section 405.4 defines a ‘ “Real property claim” ’ as ‘the cause or causes of action in a pleading which would, if meritorious, affect ... title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property....’ ‘If the pleading filed by the claimant does not properly plead a real property claim, the lis pendens must be expunged upon motion under CCP 405.31.’
“Section 405.30 allows the property owner to remove an improperly recorded lis pendens by bringing a motion to expunge. There are several statutory bases for expungement of a lis pendens, including [that the] claimant's pleadings, on which the lis pendens is based, do not contain a real property claim. See § 405.31. Unlike most other motions, when a motion to expunge is brought, the burden is on the party opposing the motion to show the existence of a real property claim. See § 405.30.”
Id. at 911 (citation, footnotes, quotations and parentheses omitted).
“The Kirkeby court also discussed the law governing a trial court's determination of a motion to expunge under section 405.31 and the standard of review applicable on appeal[.]” Ibid.
“Section 405.31 provides: ‘In proceedings under this chapter, the court shall order the notice expunged if the court finds that the pleading on which the notice is based does not contain a real property claim.’ In making this determination, the court must engage in a demurrer-like analysis. ‘Rather than analyzing whether the pleading states any claim at all, as on a general demurrer, the court must undertake the more limited analysis of whether the pleading states a real property claim.’ Review ‘involves only a review of the adequacy of the pleading and normally should not involve evidence from either side, other than possibly that which may be judicially noticed as on a demurrer.’ Therefore, review of an expungement order under section 405.31 is limited to whether a real property claim has been properly pled by the claimant. ”
Ibid. (citations omitted).
Here, the underlying petition does not contain a real property claim. In summary, the operative petition alleges as follows:
This Petition arises from Nicole [Medina]'s bad-faith and unlawful distribution to herself and to her brother Mitchell [Freeman] an aggregate $1.45 million from their parents' estates without notice or court approval. eCapital had filed two Creditor's Claims against their parents' estates – the respective estates of Tracy Freeman ("Tracy Estate") and David Freeman ("David Estate") (collectively, the "Freeman Estates") relating to a spousal community debt that Tracy incurred during her life when she defaulted under her personal guaranty of the Loan (defined below) from eCapital to Tracy's business Volume Snacks, Inc. ("Volume Snacks"). Rather than restore the $1.45 million pending the resolution of eCapital's Creditor's Claims, Nicole and Mitchell spent the money so distributed, and Nicole (then serving as Personal Representative of the David Estate) baselessly rejected the Creditor's Claim filed in the David Estate. The looting, distribution, and expenditure of $1.45 million was intended as a blatant, bad-faith scheme to hinder and delay eCapital's collection of its Creditor's Claims.
12/5/24 Pet. ¶ 1.
As a result of this alleged misconduct, petitioner requests the court, among other things, for an order:
(1) requiring Nicole and Mitchell to return $1.45 million to the Tracy Estate (or alternatively, the David Estate) under Probate Code section 850, (2) for injunctive relief under Probate Code section 856 prohibiting Nicole and Mitchell from transferring, selling, or encumbering any real or personal property that they have acquired, obtained, or improved with the $1.45 million they received from the Freeman Estates.
Ibid.
Title of Medina and Freeman’s real property is not at issue in the petition. Rather, the petition alleges that Medina/Freeman received funds unlawfully and seeks to enjoin Medina and Freeman from disposing of any real property they have acquired, obtained or improved with those funds. “[A] claim that seeks an interest in real property merely for the purpose of securing a money damage judgment does not support the recording of a lis pendens.” Campbell, 132 Cal.App.4th at 912 (and cases cited therein). Petitioner’s allegations do not affect title or possession of the real property at issue. See Urez Corp. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1141, 1149; La Paglia v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1322, 1325, 1327.
To the extent that a result to the contrary would be possible under either Okuda v. Superior Court (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 135, 141 (cited by petitioner) or Coppinger v. Superior Court (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 883, 891, the court finds these cases to be unpersuasive and declines to follow them. See Campbell, 132 Cal.App.4th at 918–919. (“We agree with Urez and the cases that follow it that to allow a party to record a lis pendens in a case in which the party seeks only “to freeze the real property as a res from which to satisfy a money judgment” …, is not consistent with the history and purpose of the lis pendens statutes and conclude that the Urez line of cases is more consistent with the history and purpose of the lis pendens statutes than are Coppinger and Okuda.”).
Moreover, Newell v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 728, is readily distinguishable and does not compel a result to the contrary. See Newell, 107 Cal. App. 5th at 737 (“[I]f [trustee] Rollins fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence [decedent] Arthur's donative transfer to her was not the product of fraud or undue influence, the court may remove Rollins as trustee. The court would have to designate a new trustee of the trust, who would then be entitled to hold title to the Van Nuys property in his or her name as successor trustee. In that event, [the instant] petition would change the name of the titleholder.”)(italics added).
In sum, the lis pendens recorded against the parcels of real property for Medina and Freeman are expunged.
There is a split of authority in the state as to whether a claim that seeks an interest in real property merely for the purpose of securing a money damage judgment supports the recording of a lis pendens. See Campbell v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App.4th at 912 (citing majority and minority positions). The 1992 amendments to the lis pendens statutes took no position regarding this issue and left it to future judicial development. Id. at 915-916. The court finds that petitioner acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion based on a good faith theory supported by existing law, including Okuda, and that it would be unjust to impose an award of attorney’s fees and costs under these circumstances. The court denies Medina and Freeman’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.
- PR0000207 In the Matter of Marcia Bauer
Appearances are required by Administrator Morgan Rains regarding petitioner Carol Nimick’s petition for a status report regarding administration of the estate and for an order to show cause regarding why a petition for final distribution should not be filed. Administrator Rains shall be prepared to address questions (a) through (e) of the petition at p. 4, line 24, to p. 5, line, 9. The administrator shall also address the question of when a petition for final distribution shall be filed.
- PR0000597 In the Matter of Joshua Christian Chamberlain Special Needs Trust #2
No appearances are required. The court has received the request for dismissal filed by petitioner and trustee; the dismissal has been entered as requested.
- PR0000635 In the Matter of Sharri-Anne Renea Adams
Appearances are required by counsel for the conservator and conservatee. The amended petition for appointment of a probate conservator of the person is granted as prayed. Counsel shall confirm that appropriate orders have been lodged in connection with the amended petition.
- PR0000659 In the Matter of Ian Fredrick Ayton
Appearances are not required. Conservatorship of the person and estate is granted as prayed. Julie Yates and Janet Mourning shall serve as the conservators. Letters shall issue.
- PR0000676 In the Matter of Ralph Berger
No appearances are required. The petition for an order confirming successor trustee and trust assets is granted in part, namely prayers for relief one through four related to the validity of the trust, its amendments and its trustee.
The court denies the fifth request for relief requesting a declaration that the subject property, i.e., 2440 S. Hacienda Boulevard, unit 225, Hacienda Heights, California, is subject to the management and control of the trustee.
“It is well established that if two specific requirements are met, real property may be made part of a trust's assets without a separate deed transferring property to the trust.” Ukkestad v. RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 156, 160, citing Estate of Heggstad (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 943, 947–950.
“The first requirement is that the owner of real property is the settlor creating the trust with himself or herself as the trustee.” Ibid. That requirement is satisfied here. Decedents/settlors Richard and Bertha Berger were owners of the subject property and created a trust naming themselves as co-trustees.
“Second, because a conveyance of real property is at issue, the other requirement for transferring real property to a trust is compliance with the statute of frauds.” Ibid.. citing Heggstad, 16 Cal.App.4th at 948. “Specifically, the statute of frauds in Probate Code section 15206 states: ‘A trust in relation to real property is not valid unless evidenced ...: [¶] (a) By a written instrument signed by the trustee .... [¶] (b) By a written instrument conveying the trust property signed by the settlor .... [¶] (c) By operation of law.’ ” Id. at 161 (italics added). That requirement is not satisfied here by sufficient, credible evidence. Neither the trust itself (Ex. L to Petition), the description of Berger Trust Property as part of the trust (Ex. M), nor the assignment of deed of trust (Ex. J) expressly convey or reasonably can be construed to convey the subject property itself to the trust. “Although [petitioner’s declaration] related the [settlors’ purported beliefs or] intent that [the subject property] was to be [part of] the trust property, the statute of frauds “forbids the creation of an express trust in real property by verbal declaration of the owner.” Osswald v. Anderson (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 812, 818.
- PR0000692 In the Matter of Terry McGowan
No appearances are required. The petition for an order approving modification of trust terms under Prob. Code section 15403 is granted as prayed.
- PR0000710 In the Matter of Miller Ernest Harper
No appearances are required. The court notes there is no original will or proof of publication submitted by petitioner. Petitioner shall file the same prior to next hearing date. Additionally, petitioner shall clarify the status of George Sill; specifically, is he the named executor (as suggested by the will) or an alternate executor? On its own motion, the Court continues this matter to May 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for further hearing on the petition. Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued court date.
- PR0000712 In the Matter of Zane Davis
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to May 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioners shall file a declaration that indicates whether they are seeking full or limited authority to administer under the Independent Administration of Estates Act, question 2.c. of the petition for probate (form DE-111). There is no proof that the petition has been served and that notice of the hearing has been provided as required by Probate Code sections 8100 and 8110. Petitioners shall serve and provide notice to each heir, devisee, executor and alternate executor named in any will as required. Finally, Petitioners shall file an executed duties and liabilities of personal representative (form DE-147). The above referenced items shall be completed no later than one week prior to next court date. Petitioners shall give notice of the continued hearing date to all required parties.
- PR0000714 In the Matter of Dylan Melanson
No appearance is required. The court, on its own motion, appoints Katherine Lenore, Esq., to represent conservatee. Additionally, the court is not in receipt of a report from Alta Regional Center as required by Prob. Code section 1827.5 or from Quest Intelligence as required by Prob. Code section 1826. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to May 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, for receipt of the reports and update from counsel. A copy of the minute order shall be served by the clerk on Alta Regional Center, Quest Intelligence, and counsel for the conservatee.
These are the Court’s tentative rulings. In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309 by 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing. If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court. See California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.
Personal appearances are permitted. You may also appear via video by arranging a remote appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument.
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.
April 28, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings
- CL0002430 State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. vs. Jeremy Ravenscroft, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendants at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
- CL0002431 Barclays Bank Delaware vs. Chris A. Pezzola
Appearances are not required. This case is at issue. Court trial is set for July 28, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall give notice. - CL0002435 Mercury Insurance Company vs. County of Nevada
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
- CU0000569 Susan Foote vs. Jenny Renee Hunter Kaeding
No appearances are required. A bankruptcy stay remains in effect. The case management conference is continued until July 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. 6. The parties are reminded to file case management conference statements two weeks in advance thereof.
- CU0001386 In the Matter of Rise Grass Valley, Inc.
Appearances are required. The court is favorably inclined to adopt the stipulation lodged on March 7, 2025 as part of the County’s case management conference statement with page limits as follows: opening and opposition briefs-40 pp., reply brief-20 pp.
- CU0001454 16th LB, Inc. vs. Trusteel, LLC, et al.
Appearances are required. It is unclear whether Botanical Equipment and Research Federation, LLC have been served in this matter. The parties shall be prepared to confirm their understanding that each party has been served and appropriately filed a response to the complaint.
- CU0001524 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Jerad G. Hioki
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall provide notice of continued case management conference.
- CU0001576 Michael A. Berson, et al. v. Martin, Daniel DDS, et al.
Appearances are required. Counsel Downing shall show cause for his failure to appear on March 17, 2025 and for the failure to serve and file the summons and complaint on Daniel C. Martin, DDS Dental Corporation. Parties shall confirm whether the case is at issue particularly as to the corporation.
- CU0001691 Scott Weidert vs. Heartwood Nevada City, LLC, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendants at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
- CU0001850 Raymond Davey v. Close Associates
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall provide notice of continued case management conference.
- CU0001853 John L. Dodd vs. Jacob O. Bjeldanes, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.
- CU0001854 Wesco Distribution, Inc., vs. Sustainable Energy Group, Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff to provide notice of continued case management conference.
- CU0001860 Matthew William Vickers vs. Ariana Kathleen Vickers, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
- CU21-085424 David Hunter vs. Bruce Coy, et al.
Appearances are required. The parties shall update the court on the status of defendant’s appeal.
April 21, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings
- CL0001304 Discover Bank vs. Heather Glynn
No appearances are required. This matter is dismissed without prejudice. The court retains jurisdiction pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code section 664.6.
- CL0002108 Dorton Drywall, et al. vs. James Clarke, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendants James Clarke and Liz Clarke shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendants at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
- CL0002112 Discover Bank vs. Susan Gisler
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
- CL0002278 JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Vikki L Vincenzi
No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or this case dismissed for failing to file a request for default or a request for dismissal of defendant as ordered on March 3, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
- CU0000385 Derek Olsen, et al. v. David Sugalski, et al.
No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or the action against Wild Acorns Learning Village dismissed for failing to file a request for default or a request for dismissal as to that defendant as ordered on March 3, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
- CU0000410 Taylor Strunk v. Stagecoach Motel et al
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
- CU0001237 Peter Lindley vs. Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority, et al.
Appearances are required. The parties shall be prepared to discuss filing of and accompanying briefing schedule for a motion for adjudication of legal issues.
- CU0001307 Rick Ewald vs. Gary Liardon, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of remaining defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff to provide notice of continued case management conference.
- CU0001418 John Albert Bacon and Sandra Jacoby Bacon, Trustees, vs. Statewide Homes, Inc.
No appearances are required. This case is at issue.
Trial is hereby set as follows: 5-day jury trial.
Trial: February 10, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
PTC: January 30, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
MSC: January 12, 2026, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
- CU0001540 Bradley Dorigo., et al. vs. County of Nevada
Appearances are required. The court has the same proof of service for defendant State of California, filed October 21, 2024 and again on March 3, 2025. Plaintiff shall clarify whether all defendants have been served and file the appropriate proof of service.
- CU0001640 Evan Benn, et al. vs. Diamond P. Properties, LLC, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Diamond P. Properties LLC. shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.The order to show cause against Counsel Binh Bui is discharged in the interests of justice.
Finally, all parties have again failed to file timely case management conference statements. The parties are admonished that failure to file case management conference statements in advance of the continued date will result in sanctions. Plaintiff shall provide notice of the continued case management conference.
- CU0001643 Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC vs. Ashley Parker, et al.
No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or the action against Ashley Parker dismissed for failing to file a request for default or a request for dismissal as to that defendant as ordered on March 3, 2025. Additionally, plaintiff again failed to file a timely case management conference statement and shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
- CU0001649 Debbie Havener vs. Shawna Sullivan, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why she should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication (as appropriate) or a request for dismissal for defendant Shawna Sullivan as ordered by the court on March 3, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
- CU0001652 Pawnee Leasing Corporation vs. 1st Choice R & R LLC, et al.
Appearances are required. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned and/or their case dismissed for failing to file a request for default regarding defendant First Choice R&R, LLC., as ordered by the court on January 6, 2025.
- CU0001656 Richard Cristdahl v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. The court has received the request for dismissal from plaintiff. This case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The order to show cause issued against Richard Cristdahl is discharged in the interests of justice.
- CU0001715 William Neil v. County of Nevada, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
- CU0001750 McKellar Tree Service & Logging, Inc. vs. Blue Lead Gold Mining, LLC, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Enegix Mining Group shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least one week prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference. - CU0001762 William Dean Ferreira vs. Stephanie Diane Stone-Ferreira, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
- CU0001842 Charles Eugene Murdock vs. Jodi Michelle Andrews
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
- CU0001844 Wells Fargo Bank vs. Tim Radford, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.Additionally, plaintiff failed to submit a timely case management conference statement. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to file a case management conference statement in advance of the continued date may result in sanctions.
- CU0001848 Pamela Bell vs. Dan Powers, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.Additionally, plaintiff failed to submit a timely case management conference statement. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to file case management conference statement in advance of the continued date may result in sanctions.
- CU0001849 Gregory Thrush vs. Jose Antonio Valdovinos
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Valdovinos shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.Defendant Valdovinos failed to file a timely case management conference statement and is admonished that failure to file a case management conference statement in advance of the continued date may result in sanctions.
- CU21-085893 Tom Amesbury, et al. vs. Barbara Heger, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
- PR0000442 In the Matter of The Sandon Trust
No appearances are required. This matter was incorrectly calendared. The court continues this matter to May 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for the petition to approve the settlement agreement.
April 14, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings
- CL0001452 Thomas Duncan Meyers, et al. vs. Ada Mavis Hickey
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication, or a request for dismissal of Defendant Hickey no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
- CL0001563 LVNV Funding LLC vs. Brittany Couture
No appearances are required. This matter is dismissed without prejudice. The court retains jurisdiction following its dismissal without prejudice and subject to California Civil Procedure Code section 664.6.
- CL0002091 Laurie Kristin Agee vs. Melissa Loper
Appearances are required. The parties shall be prepared to set a court trial date.
- CL0002395 Discover Bank vs. Natalie Bowen
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication, or a request for dismissal of Defendant Bowen no later than one week prior to the continued case management conference.
- CU0000943 Russell Roark vs. Stephen Cardosi, et al.
Appearances are required. Defendants Stephen and Kristyn Cardosi shall show cause for their failure to appear on March 24, 2025. Additionally, the court notes that both defendants have been served but there is neither a request for default from plaintiff nor a responsive pleading from defendants. Therefore, this case is not yet at issue.
- CU0001249 Tina Warner v. Jennie Pope
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why she should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication or a request for dismissal as ordered by the court on February 3, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
- CU0001395 Eric Butterworth, et al. vs. Mountain Concepts, LLC, et al.
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
- CU0001444 Janet Littlefield, et al. vs. Homecraft Building & Design, Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Cross-complainant Bartley shall file a proof of service, an application for service by publication, or a request for dismissal of Defendants Old Bull River Construction and Montana’s Best Builders, LLC., no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Cross-complainant Bartley shall give notice of the continued case management conference.
- CU0001483 Susan Gabrielle vs. Phillip G. Conlon, Jr.
Appearances are required. This case is at issue. The court intends to set dates for a court trial. Cross-complainant Conlon shall provide a status regarding cross-defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust and its intentions with respect to the current default.
- CU0001544 Caitlin Peters vs. Cara Krpalek, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The service on defendant Jiri Krpalek appears to be defective. The proof of service does not indicate that a copy of the summons and complaint was mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid to defendant Krpalek at the residence where the copy of the summons and complaint were left, as required by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 415.20. Plaintiff shall either file an amended proof of service or effectuate service in compliance with the statutory requirements no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
- CU0001600 Darlene Lea v. Cynthia Chapman, et al.
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. It appears this matter has settled. The court seeks an update on when the dismissal will be filed.
- CU0001651 Joseph Sacks vs. Navy Federal Credit Union
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
- CU0001694 Tuyen Vuong vs. Cynthia Lynn Nulph
No appearances are required. This case is at issue.
Trial is hereby set as follows: 7-day jury trial.
Trial: January 13, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
PTC: January 2, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
MSC: December 15, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
- CU0001722 Micah Ellis vs. SPD Market, Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. This case is at issue.
Trial is hereby set as follows: 7-day jury trial.
Trial: January 27, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
PTC: January 9, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
MSC: December 29, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
- CU0001726 Gianna Garrett vs. Jack Laird
Appearances are required. The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s request to dismiss the first amended complaint. In light of that request, the court seeks clarification from plaintiff on status of the case, as it does not appear there is a pending complaint and no defendants have been served.
- CU0001738 Nationstar Mortgage LLC vs. The Testate and Intestate Successors of Gilbert J. Vega, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication or a request for dismissal as ordered by the court on February 24, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
April 7, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings
- CL0002141 Discover Bank vs. Sequoia Nicholas
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
- CL0002373 Discover Bank vs. Patrick Weger
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
- CU0000191 David Elliott, et al. v. Ellen Nevarez, et al.
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
- CU0000634 Carla Marie Vieira vs. Cal. Department of Transportation, et al.
Appearances are required. This case appears at issue. Counsel shall update the court as to the same and be prepared to discuss trial dates.
- CU0000991 Christopher Stormbringer v. Turning Point
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 2, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
- CU0001162 Miles Hagood vs. Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc.
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
- CU0001189 Corina Loving-Mills, et al. vs. Abby Eidson
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
- CU0001270 Marin Martin vs. Crystal Kanada, et al.
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
- CU0001308 Cephren Jennemann vs. Gro-Tech Systems, Inc., et al.
Appearances are required. Plaintiff shall show cause for failure to file proof of service, an application for service by publication, or a request for dismissal of Defendant Gro-Tech Systems, Inc., as previously ordered. Additionally, counsel shall show cause for failing to appear on February 24, 2025. Finally, no parties have filed case management conference statements are required.
- CU0001320 Sara Bowling vs. Caseproof, LLC, et al.
Appearances are required. The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of settlement.
- CU0001347 Patricia Kukucka, et al. vs. Grass Valley S H, LLC, et al.
No appearances are required. The court on its own motion continues the case management conference to October 6, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to provide sufficient time for the parties to complete arbitration.
- CU0001354 Cynthia Gustafson vs. Safeway Inc., et al.
No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why she should not be sanctioned for failing effectuate service on Store Manager, Doe 1.
- CU0001577 Public Risk Innov. Solutions and Mgt. vs. Sammies Friends Inc.
No appearances are required. This case is at issue.
Trial is hereby set as follows: 5-day jury trial.
Trial: January 27, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
PTC: January 9, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
MSC: December 29, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
- CU0001813 USA Bath California Remodeling, Inc. vs. David Sweat
No appearances are required. This case is at issue.
Trial is hereby set as follows: 5-day jury trial.
Trial: January 27, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
PTC: January 9, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
MSC: December 29, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
- CU21-085797 Koslin and Koslin Construction, Inc. vs. GV Development LLC
Appearances are required. The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of dismissal.
- P89-10877 In the Matter of Thomas Michael Odom
No appearances are required. This matter was incorrectly calendared. The court continues this matter to May 2, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.
- PR0000642 In the Matter of Shauna Geary
No appearances are required. The court has signed the stipulation and order. This matter is off calendar.
- PR0000664 In the Matter of the Dennis W. Babson 2000 Trust
Appearances are required. The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of dismissal.
April 1, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings
- CU0000284 Tod DuBois v Scott Fetty, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
- CU0001613 Judith and Coleman Bowman v. Town of Truckee
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
- CU0000656 Riley Gault vs. Mark Steffen
Appearances are required. The parties submitted an October 18, 2024, notice of settlement in this matter. The court needs the parties to verify whether this case has settled. The court is inclined to set another case management conference on May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, to permit plaintiff’s counsel sufficient time to serve the order relieving counsel on plaintiff at his current reported address in Colorado.
March 24, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings
- CL0000572 Gerry Reis v. Roger Reis
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. An order to show cause hearing is set for the same date and time for plaintiff to explain why this action against should not be dismissed and/or plaintiff sanctioned for failure to serve the first amended complaint as previously ordered by the court. Additionally, plaintiff again failed to filed a case management conference statement and shall show cause why he should not be subject to sanctions. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference and OSC hearing.
- CL0001259 Deal, Thomas M v. Fred Gerkensmeyer, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The operative complaint is the first amended complaint. There appears to be a June 13, 2024 proof of service as to both defendants and no responsive pleading. These minutes shall be distributed to all parties and their counsel including counsel for the Regional Housing Authority, which made a previous appearance. All parties are directed to appear at the next conference.
- CL0001985 Cavalry SPV I LLC as assignee of Synchrony vs. Deborah Rawson
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
- CL0002062 Velocity Investments LLC vs. Devin Smith
This matter will be heard on the 1:00 p.m. calendar.
- CL0002352 Sun Forest Springs, LLC vs. Patricia Johnson
Appearances are required. Petitioner shall update court on the status of this case.
- CU0000512 eCapital Asset Based Lending v. Medina, Nicole et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 19, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6 following pending motions.
- CU0001082 Stephen David Protzman Jr v. Hansen Brothers Enterprises
No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned and/or his case dismissed for failing to comply with the previous order to file a proof of service, an application for service by publication (if desired), or a request for dismissal as directed on December 23, 2024. Plaintiff is also ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to file and serve a timely case management conference statement. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference and OSC hearing
- CU0001207 Amanda Powell vs. Briarpatch Cooperative Of Nevada, Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. Upon the request of the parties, the court continues this matter to May 5, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for status regarding class approval and settlement. The parties shall file a motion for preliminary approval of class and PAGA settlement prior thereto set for hearing on an appropriate future date.
- CU0001386 In the Matter of RISE GRASS VALLEY, INC., a Nevada corporation
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court appreciates the parties’ efforts to explore how appropriately to address the issues of this case including their stipulation as to bifurcation. At present, however, the parties have not explained why briefing of 125 pages is required to address the vested-rights related claim. The parties must provide the court with additional information as to the nature and complexity of this issue so that the court can make an informed decision as to the length of briefs to authorize. The parties shall submit a joint statement as to the same of no more than three pages no later than 14 days prior to the next scheduled conference.
- CU0001664 Carla Markeeta Jefferson, et al. vs. Heating-Cooling Service Co., et al.
Appearances are required. This case is at issue and the court intends to set trial. The parties shall meet and confer in advance and be prepared to suggest an appropriate trial date.
- CU0001723 Umpqua Bank vs. Joseph A. Miller, DMD, Inc., et al.
Appearances are not required. The court has received the March 20, 2025, report of plaintiff including its request to expand the receivership. No withdrawals shall be made from any bank account of the dental business unless agreed by all parties and approved by the court. Defendant shall file any response to the March 20, 2025, report no later than March 26, 2025, noon. Any reply shall be filed no later than March 28, 2025, noon. The matter is set for hearing on the law and motion calendar for April 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. A further case management conference will be set on that date. - CU0001796 Sonya Sokolow v. Environmental Health Director Amy Irani
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service of summons. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service or request for dismissal no later than one week before the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
- CU0001811 Auto Fraud Legal Center LLP fna Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP vs. Dalton Workman
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Workman shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least one week prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.Additionally, Plaintiff failed to submit a case management conference statement. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to serve a statement for future case management conferences may subject them to sanctions.
- CU22-086160 KEVIN MALONE vs. WILLIAM FERREIRA
Appearances are required. This case is at issue.Trial is hereby set as follows: 9-day jury trial.
Trial: October 14, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
PTC: October 3, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
MSC: September 22, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
March 17, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings
- CL0001239 American Express National Bank vs. Rose Cage
No appearances are required. This matter is dismissed with prejudice. The court retains jurisdiction following its dismissal with prejudice and subject to California Civil Procedure Code section 664.6. - CL0001344 Midland Credit Management Inc vs. David Villnow
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
- CL0001512 Bank of America N.A. vs. Soren Robert Darr
No appearances are required. This matter is dismissed without prejudice. The court retains jurisdiction following its dismissal without prejudice and subject to California Civil Procedure Code section 664.6.
- CL0001542 LVNV Funding LLC vs. William E Ferris
No appearances are required. This matter is dismissed without prejudice. The court retains jurisdiction following its dismissal without prejudice and subject to California Civil Procedure Code section 664.6.
- CL0002331 United Financial Casualty Company vs. Katie Powers
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or request for dismissal not later than one week before the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
- CU0000828 Brooke Brady v. Carol Silverman
Appearances are required. Plaintiff shall show cause why she should not be sanctioned and/or this case dismissed for failing to serve the summons and complaint and failing to appear on September 16, 2024.
- CU0000948 Ivan Nyal vs. Jack Bacon
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
- CU0001181 Cynthia Hermosa vs. Adam Rayford Kilpatrick et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. An order to show cause hearing is set for the same date and time for plaintiff to explain why the action against defendant Garrett Warner Woodgrift should not be dismissed and/or plaintiff sanctioned for failure to serve the summons and complaint. Additionally, no party filed a case management conference statement and is admonished that failure to serve a statement for future case management conferences may subject it to sanctions. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference and OSC hearing. - CU0001257 Barbara Cramer vs. Advanced Home Health and Hospice, Inc., et al.
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of this case. - CU0001576 Michael A. Berson, et al. v. Martin, Daniel DDS, et al.
Appearances are required. This case appears at issue, but the court requests confirmation from the parties that all defendants have been served and answered. Specifically, has Daniel C. Martin, DDS Dental Corporation, d/b/a Tahoe Oral Surgery and Implant Center, a named defendant in the complaint, answered this complaint? Upon confirmation, the court is inclined to set trial dates as follows:
Trial: September 30, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
PTC: September 19, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
MSC: September 8, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6. - CU0001611 Fora Financial Asset Securitization 2021 LLC vs. TJ's Roadhouse of Nevada City LLC, et al.
No appearance is required. A hearing regarding default judgment is set for June 27, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Dept. 6. - CU0001620 Beau Grady vs. Loren Ralph Winters
Appearances are required. This case is at issue.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.The February 19, 2025 order to show cause is discharged in the interests of justice. The court notes that plaintiff failed to file a case management conference statement as required.
- CU0001698 James Saunders Grill v. Eleonore Anderson, et al.
Appearances are not required. The court has entered dismissals with prejudice for both the complaint and cross-complaint as requested. - CU0001781 Kathlene Bonnigson vs. Albertsons Safeway LLC
Appearances are required. This case is at issue. Parties shall confirm availability of dates below.Trial is hereby set as follows: 7-day jury trial.
Trial: October 28, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
PTC: October 17, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
MSC: October 6, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6. - CU0001787 Carol Lynn Hills v. State of California
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or request for dismissal not later than one week before the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
- CU0001793 Jamie Davidson vs. Bluebell Holdings, LLC
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 following defendant’s motion to compel arbitration set for April 4, 2025.
- CU0001794 PHH Mortgage Corporation vs. Brenda Marie Durtschi, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Durtschi shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least one week prior to the continued case management conference.
- CU0001795 Krissa Connelley vs. Todd Tuggle, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Cross-Complainants shall identify and serve any desired “Roes 1 through 50” by the next case management conference.
April 17, 2025 and April 24, 2025 Department 3 Guardianship Annual Review Tentative Ruling
Notice:
These are the Court’s tentative rulings. Attorneys and parties are directed to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing. These tentative rulings will be adopted by the Court, unless the guardian and / or parent personally appears at the hearing and objects to the tentative ruling. The person requesting that appearance must notify the other party / parties AND the court before 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing date.
Email OA@nccourt.net with a copy to the other party / parties to give this notice. You may request to appear remotely by clicking here.
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.
04/24/2025 at 9:00 a.m.
Guardianship Calendar Tentative Rulings Department 3
- Case No. P0000450 In the Matter of: Brody B.
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 04/07/2025. Your appearance on Thursday, 04/24/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 04/02/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.
04/17/2025 at 9:00 a.m.
Guardianship Calendar Tentative Rulings Department 3
- Case No. P0000096 In the Matter of: Brooklynn M.
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 04/10/2025. Your appearance on Thursday, 04/17/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 04/02/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.
- Case No. P0000212 In the Matter of: Logun 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 03/12/2025. Your appearance on Thursday, 04/17/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 04/02/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.
- Case No. P0000192 In the Matter of: Joel S.
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 03/17/2025. Your appearance on Thursday, 04/17/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 04/02/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.
Friday, April 4, 2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference
Friday, March 21, 2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference
Friday, March , 7 2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference
Friday, February, 7 2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference
Friday, January 3, 2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference
Friday, December 6, 2024 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference
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.
-
These are the Court’s tentative rulings. In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309, Ext. 4 no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing. If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court.
- If neither party gives that notice, your appearance at the status conference. is not necessary UNLESS the tentative decision in your case requires that appearance.
- 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 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.
- 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001395
Petitioner: Restad, Barbara
Attorney: Montero, John V.
Respondent: Restad, Lawrence
Attorney: Self-Represented
- No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. No further status conference will be set.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001441
Petitioner: Menig, Faith
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Menig, Ryan
Attorney: Miller, Chandra (Ltd scope)
- This is the third status conference. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. No further status conference will be set.
- 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:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001458
Petitioner: Dalmau, Brandee
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Martinelli, David
Attorney: Walters, Cleat
- This is the third status conference. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. No further status conference will be set.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001467
Petitioner: Andrews, Jodi
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Walsh, Robert
Attorney: Self-Represented
- This is the third status conference. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. No further status conference will be set.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001502
Petitioner: Garcia, Thomas Ronald
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Garcia, Candice S.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Judgment was entered between these parties in Case # FL0001500 on 07/22/2024. No case management is needed. The Court intends to dismiss this case if no party appears and shows cause why the matter should not be dismissed.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001508
Petitioner: Toohey, Candice
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Toohey, Brian
Attorney: Self-Represented
- This is the third status conference. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. No further status conference will be set.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-110 Summons on Amended Petition
- FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons on original petition and on amended petition. OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
04/04/2025, 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 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 .
- 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.
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 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 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 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 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 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 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 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 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 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 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 .
- 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.
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002407
Petitioner: Jaime, Kasey
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Jaime, David
Attorney: Anderson, William
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002539
Petitioner: Whetton, Lucy
Attorney: Alexander, Kristen
Respondent: Whetton, Guy
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002541
Petitioner: Monroe, Murli
Attorney: Mercer, Eric
Respondent: Guzman, Bryan Allen
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 .
- 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.
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002542
Petitioner: Tracy, Michelle
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Lavoie, Jeremie
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response from Respondent, OR
- 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
- FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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.
- One of the following:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002543
Petitioner: Block, Sharlene Renee
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Block, Jeffery Steven
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002549
Petitioner: Berry, Rick
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Berry, Lisa Bonney
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002564
Petitioner: Canepa, Gabriella Frances
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Canepa, Andre Jae
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- MC-030 Declaration to re-submit Judgment for review.
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002569
Petitioner: Luquin, Lauren Kathleen
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Luquin, Edward Alexis-Garcia
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002570
Petitioner: Cook, Jeffrey
Attorney: Walters, Cleat
Respondent: Cook, Christina
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002585
Petitioner: Ross, Brittany
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Ross, Aaron Manual
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002593
Petitioner: Justyn, Emily
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Stafford, David Reed
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002620
Petitioner: Henslee, Shannon
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Henslee, Daniel Paul
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002631
Petitioner: Ford, Laura
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Harrison, Christopher Sr.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response from Respondent, OR
- 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
- FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002640
Petitioner: Saari, Melinda Vienna
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Edgerton, Jamie Allen
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002652
Petitioner: Ostrofe, Sabine L.
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Ostrofe, Allen F.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 .
- 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.
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, 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
04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL21-016368
Petitioner: Demara, Sandra
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Demara, Robert
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The original Petition in this matter was filed on 03/15/2021 and served on 03/24/2024. The Court intends to deem the Petition filed on 09/19/2024 an Amended Petition based on that filing. The Court has not received proof of service of the Petition and Summons filed on 09/19/2024. Both must be served to proceed with this matter.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 10/03/2025, 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
03/21/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FLFL0002566
Petitioner: Clifford, Callie
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Clifford, Traver
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, 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 10/01/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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.
- One of the following:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 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 or further status conference is contemplated by the Court at this time.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Petitioner: Schwartz, Patrick
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Schwartz, Lacey B.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- This is the third status conference. No continuance or further status conference 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL00001398
Petitioner: Tipton, Brittany
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Cook, Jared
Attorney: Self-Represented
- This is the third status conference. Personal appearance is required. No continuance or further status conference is contemplated by the Court at this time.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001416
Petitioner: Mantooth, Colleen
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Mantooth, Steve
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:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001723
Petitioner: Hood, Megan
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Hood, Brian
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001898
Petitioner: Mallo, Mona-Lisa
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Mallo, Mark
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001915
Petitioner: Griffiths, Melinda Sue
Attorney: Anderson, James
Respondent: Fritz, Daryl Wayne
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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.
- One of the following:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001960
Petitioner: Keyser, Kevin
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Keyser, Rebekah
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 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 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001981
Petitioner: Farrell, Marcia Webster
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Farrell, Douglas Ted
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 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 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001995
Petitioner: Colbert, Danyel
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Bartoli, Vincent
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- 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:
- FL-270 Response to Petition for Custody and Support of Minor Children OR
- 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
- FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner.
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002005
Petitioner: Rodriguez, Hope
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Rodriguez, David
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002018
Petitioner: Samson, Allison Rivers
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Samson, David Scott
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002029
Petitioner: Sullivan, Shelly
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Morrow, Nico
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. .
- Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons . FL-115 is not complete. The address of service information is missing. If the original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served. When the Court has the correct Proof of Service, the Court requires one of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002397
Petitioner: Gerhart, Audrey
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Gerhart, Keith
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002417
Petitioner: Peterson, Ingrid
Attorney: Christie, Nancy
Respondent: Carter, Tom
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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.
- One of the following:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002433
Petitioner: Rocha, Ashley Anne
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Rocha. Lionel Cardoza II
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002475
Petitioner: LaGrou, Melanie
Attorney: Anderson, Sara (Ltd scope)
Respondent: Gardner, Brian
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons only if parties want termination of marital status before 03/19/2025.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002498
Petitioner: Guiterrez, Samantha
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Guiterrez, Israel
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- Since Judgment was declined because there were no child support forms and calculation attached when the judgment did not actually ask for child support at this time, Petitioner needs to file an explanation and request re-submission. For forms or assistance with that, Petitioner may contact the attorney of her choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002500
Petitioner: Hostetter, Raymond Wayne
Attorney: Klein, w. Gregory
Respondent: Hostetter, Shana Lee Johnson
Attorney: Anderson, James
- 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002504
Petitioner: Dixon, Jerry
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Dixon, Kaye
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002516
Petitioner: Foster, Mark
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Foster, Heather
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002517
Petitioner: Greene, Hannah Breeze
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Greene, Adam Abraham
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002518
Petitioner: Thibodeaux, Jennifer
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Thibodeaux, John
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002533
Petitioner: Baker, Typer Robert
Attorney: Bell, Joseph
Respondent: Baker, Sherron Angell
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002535
Petitioner: Kroner, Elisha
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Kroner, Adam
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002554
Petitioner: Baker, Megan Rebecca
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Baker, Christian Lee
Attorney: Granger, Jennifer
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002565
Petitioner: Weisman, Zachary D.
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Don, Evangelina
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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 09/05/2025, 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
03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002579
Petitioner: Foster, Jeff
Attorney: Strasser, Laura (ltd scope) Self-Represented
Respondent: Johnson, Ellen
Attorney: Gettys, Canence (Ltd scope) Self-Represented
- 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001315
Petitioner: Piaget, Isis
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Roldan, Pedro Merida
Attorney: Self-Represented
- 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:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001324
Petitioner: Gardner, Michael A.
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Lucero, Sara J.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- 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:
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 .
- One of the following:
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001765
Petitioner: Kenyon, Alison
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Kenyon, Eric
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons . FL-115 is not complete. The date and time of service are missing. If original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served. Once correct Proof of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001804
Petitioner: Langlois, Mary Lou
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Langlois, David Bruce
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001820
Petitioner: Flecksteiner, Annessa
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Flecksteiner, Jeffrey
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response OR
- 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
- 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.
- 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:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001826
Petitioner: LeVeaux, Devon
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Lopez LeVeaux, Antonio
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 .
- One of the following:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001874
Petitioner: Holstrom, Richard III
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Holstrom, Ashley
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001905
Petitioner: Alvarado, Jesseca R.
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Alvarado, Brian M.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002227
Petitioner: Wright, Dean Norman
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Wright, Carolyn Jill Crist
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002339
Petitioner: Greeley, India
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Greeley, Erik
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002349
Petitioner: Gordon, Gwen
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Keyser, Herbert Carter
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002351
Petitioner: Gilchrist, Leanne
Attorney: Carter, Gregory
Respondent: Gilchrist, Timothy
Attorney: Bell, Joseph
- 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002356
Petitioner: Allen, Adriana
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Allen, Dustin
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002360
Petitioner: Phillips, Morgan
Attorney: Foley, Ryan
Respondent: Phillips, Chandler
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002362
Petitioner: Smith, Andrea
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Smith, Jonathan Jeffrey-Lee
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002367
Petitioner: DeMario, Christopher
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: DeMario, Jamie
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002373
Petitioner: Morales, Skye
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Morales, Jackie
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002378
Petitioner: Dionne, Terii
Attorney: Christie, Nancy
Respondent: Van Der Zalm, Erikl
Attorney: Walters, Cleat
- 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002384
Petitioner: Foster, Scott Foster
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Foster, Andrea
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002391
Petitioner: Woodruff, Joseph
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: DeGennaro, Brandy
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002394
Petitioner: Wells, Lisa
Attorney: Walters, Cleat
Respondent: Wells, Ryan
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002396
Petitioner: Thibodeau, Jaime
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Lucero, Angel
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002401
Petitioner: Uribe, Cesar J.
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Kelly, Nicole C.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons . If original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served. Once date of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
- FL-120 Response OR
- 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
- FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served and request to set prove-up hearing.
- Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons . If original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served. Once date of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002404
Petitioner: Kiser, Lissa
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Kiser, Richard Jr.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002408
Petitioner: McLees, Ryan
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: McLees, Giedre
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002418
Petitioner: Green Wells, Megan Frances
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Wells, Michael Ryan
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002423
Petitioner: Garcia, Ruth Debora
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Garcia, John
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner AND Request to set prove-up hearing for nullity facts.
- One of the following:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002425
Petitioner: Dreher, Elizabeth
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Dreher, Douglas Joseph
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002429
Petitioner: Foster, Kathy Ellen
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Johnson, Samuel Elan
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002437
Petitioner: Ingle, Robert
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Ingle, Melyssa
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002450
Petitioner: Nunnink, Danny
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Nunnink, Kyle
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002472
Petitioner: Mason, Kasi
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Mason, Timothy
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/1/2025, 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001023
Petitioner: Davis, Jerrett
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Davis, Angel
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:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001159
Petitioner: Hojnacki, Jennifer
Attorney: Medina, Angelina
Respondent: Taapa, Jonathon
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. If Judgment is entered before the status conference, no appearance is required.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL00001176
Petitioner: Adachi, Craig
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Adachi, Susan
Attorney: Self-Represented
- 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:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001193
Petitioner: Belendez, Rachel
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Belendez, Robert
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:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001197
Petitioner: Trethewey, Mary E.
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Trethewey, Paul M.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- 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:
- 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001203
Petitioner: Selletti, Stephanie
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Selletti, Justin
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:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001683
Petitioner: Skellenger, Jason
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Skellener, Katherine
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 08/01/2025, 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001710
Petitioner: Goodyear, Amelia
Attorney: Walters, Cleat
Respondent: Hippert, Joseph
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/01/2025, 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
01/03/2025, 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 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/01/2025, 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001763
Petitioner: Menezes, Rebecca
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Menezes, Freddie
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/01/2025, 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001777
Petitioner: Brace, George
Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory
Respondent: Brace, Darci
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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 08/01/2025, 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002282
Petitioner: Peternell, Raymond
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Peternell, Megan
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/01/2025, 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002297
Petitioner: Nicholson, Cynthia Louise
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Nicholson, Justin Levi
Attorney: Gettys, Candence
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 08/01/2025, 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002312
Petitioner: Turek, Ricki Roberts
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Turek, Daniel
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 .
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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.
- One of the following:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002314
Petitioner: Coulter, Crystal S.
Attorney: Granger, Jennifer
Respondent: Coulter, Chris G.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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 08/01/2025, 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002324
Petitioner: Entler, Ruby
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Shaw, Luke
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002326
Petitioner: Dugan, Kenneth
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Dugan, Tina Thayer C.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. Summons was not filed with the Petition. Court intends to issue an OSC to dismiss the case. Petitioner can cure this by filing Summons on or before December 31, 2024.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002333
Petitioner: Herzig, James
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Brown, Jessica
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 08/01/2025, 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002366
Petitioner: Click, Kevin
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Richardson, Hanamae
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 08/01/2025, 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
01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002379
Petitioner: Montgomery, Linda
Attorney: Thompson, Sara
Respondent: Montgomery, Mark
Attorney: Gettys, Candence
- 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001040
Petitioner: Williams, Kendall
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Williams, RIcky
Attorney: Self-Represented
This is the third status conference. Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001071
Petitioner: VanValkenberg. Angela
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Clark, Gavin
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:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001076
Petitioner: Duarte, Miriah
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Nicholson, Clint
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:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001103
Petitioner: Ly, Sarah
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Ly, Cun
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:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
- 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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001105
Petitioner: Lerche, Ella
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Ramsay, Mitchell
Attorney: Self-Represented
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
- 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 standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001109
Petitioner: Dunmire, Judy
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Dunmire, David
Attorney: Self-Represented
- 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:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001140
Petitioner: Whitley, Sierra
Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory
Respondent: Whitley, Thomas
Attorney: Self-Represented
- 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:
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 .
- One of the following:
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
_________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001313
Petitioner: Carver, Christopher
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Carver, Renee
Attorney: Self-Represented
- 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:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 .
- 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.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001619
Petitioner: Knox, Keenen
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Zolling, Kimberly
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- 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:
- FL-270 Response to Petition for Custody and Support of Minor Children OR
- Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. OR
- FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner.
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001623
Petitioner: Kendrick, Scott
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Kendrick, Karen
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001626
Petitioner: Gutierrez Agoado, Christine
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Gutierrez Agoado, Richard
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- There are issues with service of process before the case can move forward.
- 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.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001629
Petitioner: Driggs, Kristin L.
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Driggs, Jeffrey P.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001644
Petitioner: Peeler, Jennifer Jasmine
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Peeler, Jason Daniel
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 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 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 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 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 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 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- 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 required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0001702
Petitioner: Avery, Stephanie
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Avery, Jerry
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002166
Petitioner: Nesbit, MIchele
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Nesbit, Evan Ryan
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002167
Petitioner: Grose, May
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Gunderson, David Byron
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002173
Petitioner: Nigro, Emily
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Nigro, Vincent
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002176
Petitioner: Hinrichs, Sandra
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Salmonson, Karl
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002178
Petitioner: Cyrus, Sonja
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Cyrus, Kalvin
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002190
Petitioner: Plisik, Michael J.
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Plisik, Kristina M.
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002199
Petitioner: Lachman, Lori
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: McAlinn, Shawn
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002204
Petitioner: DeLaughter, Breannah
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: DeLaughter, Cory
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002205
Petitioner: Martinez, Sophie
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Martinez, Anthony James
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of th tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002216
Petitioner: Kemmer, Suzanne
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Tackaberry, Michael
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002217
Petitioner: Kenney, Amanda
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Kenney, Jeffrey
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002219
Petitioner: Castro, Kayla
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Castro, Louis
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002220
Petitioner: Taylor-Hren, Mewgan
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Elliott, Jeremiah
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002221
Petitioner: Cregar, Christina
Attorney: Ewing, Janet
Respondent: Groom, Ray
Attorney: Thompson, Sara
- 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002228
Petitioner: Torres, Pablo
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Yarala, Stephanie
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Petitioner: Thompson, Robert Wesley
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Alee, Rhonda Lee
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The parties asked for inconsistent underlying relief which cannot be resolved at a Status Conference.
- If you need forms or assistance with the procedure, you may contact the attorney of your choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002237
Petitioner: Pasciutti, James Danile
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Pasciutti, Donette Rose
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
- FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002258
Petitioner: Thompson, Aaron
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Cohen, Liz
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002272
Petitioner: Marks, Cory Thomas
Attorney: Bell, Joseph
Respondent: Marks, Isadora Pacheco
Attorney: Gettys, Candence
- 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002278
Petitioner: Lund, Ryan
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Hunt, Kylie
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.
__________________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002285
Petitioner: Peebles, Travis
Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent: Peebles, Samantha
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 06/06/2025, 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
12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL0002290
Petitioner: Amezcus, Corinne
Attorney: Thompson, Sara
Respondent: Amezcus, Kenneth
Attorney: Self-Represented
- Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
- The Court notes that the following are still required:
- One of the following:
- FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
- 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
- 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 .
- One of the following:
- The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
- 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.
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. 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 appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument.
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.
April 18, 2025 Department A - Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings
- CL0001165 Victor Navarrete vs. Jennin Valentine Martinez et al
Appearances are required. All parties shall show cause for their failure to appear on March 21, 2025 as directed by the Court. Additionally, Defendant JVM Landscape shall be prepared to inform the Court on the status of obtaining new counsel, and all parties shall be prepared to discuss the status of this case. Former counsel, Stoel Rives LLP, for defendants has not filed a proof of service evidencing notice was provided to defendants of the continued OSC and CMC as was previously ordered by the Court on 2/24/2025. Accordingly, the Court expects former counsel to appear in light of this failure to follow the Court’s order.Finally, no party has provided a case management conference statement. All parties are admonished that failure to serve a timely statement for future case management conferences will subject them to sanctions.
- CL0002136 Progressive West Insurance Company vs. Siordia Jovaghdominic
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the Court continues the case management conference to May 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A. In addition, Plaintiff shall show cause on the same date and time as to why Plaintiff has failed to take the default of the solely named Defendant and have a proof up hearing set. Jovaghdominic shall file a responsive pleading, or Plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of Defendant at least one week prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
- CL0002143 Absolute Resolutions Investments LLC vs. Kate E Leist
Appearances are required. Plaintiff shall show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve Defendant with the Summons and Complaint in this matter. The Court’s indicated ruling is to dismiss this case without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve and failure to show due diligence in attempting to serve in any manner allowed by law. Should Plaintiff fail to provide documented evidence of due diligence to serve Defendant, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice.
- CU0000485 Hicks, Jennifer et al v. Sokolow, Sonia et al
Appearances are required. The Court seeks an update from the parties on the status of settlement negotiations or possible mediation. Additionally, the Court intends to set a default prove up hearing for Defendant Sokolow.
- CU0000779 Doe, John v. Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District et al
Appearances are required. The Court seeks an update on the status of this litigation and wishes to hear from either Plaintiff’s Conservator or County Counsel as indicated at the previous case management conference.
- CU0001194 Evelyn Lavoie vs. PIPING ROCK EQUESTRIAN CENTER, LLC et al
No appearances are required. It has been more than forty-five (45) days since the Court received notice of settlement which notice was filed on February 19, 2025. The Court intends to dismiss the case without prejudice unless timely objection and appearances are made along with a showing of good cause.
- CU0001204 Brad Krommenhoek vs. Future Motion, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
No appearances are required. Pursuant to the entry of order regarding addition of this case to JCCP, all matters in this proceeding are stayed and any future deadlines or events are vacated.
- CU0001216 Greg Bomhoff vs. Michael Decarlo et al
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the Court continues the case management conference to June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading to the second amended complaint, or Plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of Defendants at least one week prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
- CU0001225 EDC Builders, Inc. vs. Annette Denise Merriman et al
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the Court continues the case management conference to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. A. Counsel shall file a case management conference statement or declaration by July 7, 2025 to inform the Court as to the status of arbitration. The stay of proceedings in this Court remains in effect.
- CU0001273 Edward De Jesus Jimenez vs. Inderpreet Singh et al
Appearances are required by Cross-complainants Jaiveer Inc. and Inderpreet Singh as the Court intends to discuss setting of a default prove up hearing with Cross-complainants as to defaulted Cross-defendant Edward de Jesus Jimenez.
No other appearances are required. This case is at issue. The Court sets jury trial and related dates as follows (noting :
Trial: April 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. each day, Dept. A
PTC: March 3, 2026, 1:30 p.m., Dept. A
MSC: February 6, 9:00 a.m., Dept. A (See, LR 4.02)
A pre-trial order shall issue. Unless party(ies) object to this tentative ruling and appear for CMC, parties are deemed to have waived notice of trial and asserted they will waive conflict at the MSC allowing the trial judge to conduct the MSC.
- CU0001285 17031 LLC, a California Limited Liability Company vs. Jacks, Joseph, et al.
The Case Management Conference in this matter shall be rescheduled. The Court will provide the parties notice of the continued CMC. The Court admonishes all parties that timely CMC Statements are to be filed.
- CU0001352 William Vick vs. Rmax Operating, LLC et al
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the Court continues the case management conference to May 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A. Cross-complainants Bobby Brown Construction and 5 Star Roof LLC., shall either amend their respective complaints to identify a Cross-defendant or dismiss their action no later than 1 week prior to the continued case management conference.
- CU0001425 The People of the State of California, by and through the Town of Truckee; and Town of Truckee, a California Charter City; vs. Brandon Abbey et al
No appearances are required. The Court sets a default prove up hearing for June 13, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. in Department A.On the Court’s own motion the order to show cause issued as to Plaintiff is discharged in the interest of justice.
- CU0001445 James B. House vs. Gregory Atchley et al
No appearances are required. On the Court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 20, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department A to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
- CU0001498 Robin Fladeboe et al vs. Gail H Beardsley et al
No appearances are required. The case is at issue. The Court sets jury trial and related dates as follows:
Trial: December 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. each day, Dept. A
PTC: October 28, 2025, 1:30 p.m., Dept. A
MSC: October 19, 2025, 10:30 a.m., Dept. A (See, LR 4.02)
A pre-trial order shall issue. Unless party(ies) object to this tentative ruling and appear for CMC, parties are deemed to have waived notice of trial and asserted they will waive conflict at the MSC allowing the trial judge to conduct the MSC.
- CU0001584 Matthew Coulter vs. Mark Olsen et al
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the Court continues the case management conference to June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading or Plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of Defendants at least one week prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
- CU0001587 Brooke Hess-Homeier vs. Brian McLeod
No appearances are required. It has been more than forty-five (45) days since the Court received notice of settlement which notice was filed on February 20, 2025. The Court intends to dismiss the case without prejudice unless timely objection and appearances are made along with a showing of good cause.
- CU0001638 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, solely as Trustee For Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-14 vs. Cameron Delano et al
No appearances are required. The Court has received the request to dismiss the entire action. This action is dismissed without prejudice. The outstanding order to show cause is discharged in the interest of justice.
- CU0001644 LOUIS WHITE PC, a business entity et al vs. JESSICA SHEER et al
No appearances are required. The case is at issue. Jury fees were not timely posted; therefore, they have been statutorily waived. The Court sets court trial and related dates as follows:
Trial: January 14, 15, 16, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. each day, Dept. A
PTC: December 16, 2025, 1:30 p.m., Dept. A
MSC: December 5, 2025, 9:00 a.m.., Dept. A (See, LR 4.02)
A pre-trial order shall issue. Unless party(ies) object to this tentative ruling and appear for CMC, parties are deemed to have waived notice of trial and asserted they will waive conflict at the MSC allowing the trial judge to conduct the MSC.
- CU0001660 Alana Bellucci vs. Chad Yates et al
No appearances are required. On the Court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 20, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department A to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
- CU0001670 Salvador Saldana Berber vs. Christopher C. Barkley et al
No appearances are required. The case is at issue. The Court sets jury trial and related dates as follows (noting Plaintiff indicated no dates of unavailability):
Trial: January 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. each day, Dept. A
PTC: December 19, 2025, 10:30 a.m., Dept. A
MSC: November 21, 2025, 10:30 a.m., Dept. A (See, LR 4.02)
A pre-trial order shall issue. Unless party(ies) object to this tentative ruling and appear for CMC, parties are deemed to have waived notice of trial and asserted they will waive conflict at the MSC allowing the trial judge to conduct the MSC.
- CU0001681 RANDY RYAN AGNO vs. James L Gould, IV. Etal et al
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the Court continues the case management conference to May 16, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department A to permit Plaintiff additional time to effectuate service. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (if appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than one week prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff to provide notice of continued case management conference date at time of service of Summons and Complaint on all parties.Additionally, on the Court’s own motion, the Court discharges the order to show cause as to Plaintiff in the interest of justice.
- CU0001692 KRISTINE BRAUN et al vs. COLTON MORGAN et al
No appearances are required. The case is at issue. The Court sets jury trial and related dates as follows (noting defense counsel indicated no dates of unavailability):
Trial: January 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 21, 22, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. each day, Dept. A
PTC: December 19, 2025, 1:30 p.m., Dept. A
MSC: November 21, 2025, 10:30 a.m., Dept. A (See, LR 4.02)
A pre-trial order shall issue. Unless party(ies) object to this tentative ruling and appear for CMC, parties are deemed to have waived notice of trial and asserted they will waive conflict at the MSC allowing the trial judge to conduct the MSC.
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.
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 appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument.
Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not be able to provide court 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 COURT 3.1312 AND SHALL, THEREAFTER, PREPARE, FILE AND SERVE NOTICE OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF COURT.
April 28, 2025 Department A Law and Motion Tentative Rulings
- CU0001086 Richard Schakow vs. Lester Enterprises Northstate, Inc. et al
Defendant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena is denied as moot, as the subpoena has been withdrawn. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,000.00.
Code of Civil Procedure “Section 1987.2, subdivision (a), provides that a trial court may in its discretion award reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred in making or opposing a motion to quash ‘if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification.’ ” Vasquez v. Cal. School of Culinary Arts, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 35, 40.
A court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both.” C.C.P. §2023.030(a).
The pursuit of "a pending motion to quash after it becomes clear that it is unjustified may be considered 'making' a motion under section 1987.2, subdivision (a)." (Evilsizor v. Sweeney (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1304, 1311.) The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellant was without justification in failing to withdraw the motion to quash where the trial court found it "'was an unnecessary situation where there were attempts to cure an issue' and 'there was no need to have this Motion to Quash the subpoena.'" (Id., at 1313-1314.)
Here, Defendant did not meet and confer prior to filing the present motion. Additionally, Defendant did not withdraw the present motion after such subpoena was withdrawn necessitating a response be filed. Had Defendant met and conferred prior to filing the motion and Plaintiff refused to withdraw the subpoena until after the filing of the motion to quash, Defendant would be acting within reason to continue to pursue its request for fees. However, here, it appears the fees were incurred without the benefit of knowing whether or not Plaintiff would voluntarily withdraw its subpoena prior to any work on a motion being necessitated. Thus, the Court finds Defendant misused the discovery process, and Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees which, based on these facts, the Court determines to be $1,000.00. Said amount shall be paid within thirty (30) days from service of the Notice of Entry of Order in this matter.
2. CU0001187 Yan Kalika vs. Sugar Bowl Corporation, a California corporation
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Objections
Defendant’s objections to evidence are overruled in their entirety except the objection (Objection 1) to the Declaration of Randy Wall. While the Court could utilize an expert’s factual opinion to inform its decision should the issue surround esoteric activities and the declaration provide useful insight into standards in the industry, “it may not receive expert evidence on the ultimate legal issues of inherent risk and duty.” Willhide-Michiulis, et al. v. Mannoth Mountain Ski Area (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 344, 354-355 (citation omitted). The nature and risks of downhill skiing are commonly understood. Towns v. Davidson (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 461, 473. Here, the Declaration of Mr. Wall is not provided to assist the Court is esoteric areas with which a court is not familiar. Rather it is to assert opinions as to the ultimate legal issues which are solely in the purview of the Court. Accordingly, the objection to the Declaration of Randy Wall is sustained.
Plaintiff’s objections to evidence are overruled in their entirety.
Standard of Review
The function of a motion for summary judgment is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and, where appropriate, 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. In addition, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party's pleadings are to be strictly construed while the opposing party's are to be liberally construed. Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768-769. Furthermore, any doubt as to whether or not there is a triable issue of material fact is to be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. Id.
Background
The Complaint in this matter alleges, on January 29, 2022, Plaintiff, Yan Kalika, was skiing at Defendant Sugar Bowl Resort along with his sons and some friends. As Plaintiff was getting off the Jerome Hill Express chairlift at Sugar Bowl Resort, he noticed for the first time the riders of the previous lift chair had fallen and were blocking the lift’s off ramp. To avoid crashing into the fallen individuals, Plaintiff contends he was forced to go around them to his right, and, in doing so, “a rope lassoed Plaintiff” pulling his head back and causing him to fall onto a 3’ X 3’ rock and sustain injuries.
The Complaint contains two causes of action: general negligence and premises liability. The Complaint does not specifically allege gross negligence; however, it does allege “recklessness”. Moreover, gross negligence need not be specifically plead as the issue of gross negligence becomes relevant only after a defendant raises the assumption of risk doctrine as a defense. See, 4 Witkin, Cal Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, section 381, pp. 481-483; See also, City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (1007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 758
Defendant asserts Plaintiff assumed the risk of the injuries he now complains of and specifically released Defendant from liability for the acts giving rise to the injuries. As such, Defendant now moves for summary judgment on these two grounds: (1) the release of liability signed by Plaintiff’s girlfriend released Defendant from liability for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff; and (2) the Primary Assumption of Risk Doctrine bars Plaintiff’s recovery.
While the Complaint does not mention a release of liability or assumption of risk, Defendant raises those issues in both its Answer and its Motion for Summary Judgment. Thus, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show a triable issue of material fact as to gross negligence. Hass v. RhodyCo Productions (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 11, 32-33. Here, Plaintiff opposes summary judgment on various theories and does specifically allege gross negligence on the part of Defendant in Plaintiff’s Opposition. See, Plaintiff’s Opposition, pp. 15-16.
Defendant directs the Court to the very recently decided case of Diamond v. Schweitzer (2025) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (5th Appellate District Court Case No. F086150 – certified for partial publication). The Diamond case is distinguishable in that, there, the Plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to gross negligence. In fact, the Court in Diamond specifically concluded “gross negligence was not an issue framed by the pleadings” nor did Plaintiff raise it in their responsive pleadings to the motion for summary judgment. Id. In Diamond, Plaintiff did not assert gross negligence until it was raised by Plaintiff’s counsel at oral argument on the motion for summary judgment which the Court found untimely. Id.
Common Carrier
A chairlift operator such as Defendant who sells tickets allowing the public to utilize its ski lifts is a common carrier. See, Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1507-1510; Platzer v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1257. Thus, it owes the highest duty of care and diligence to provide safe passage to its patrons. Id. However, California Civil Code sections 2174 and 2175 do not preclude a ski resort from “negotiating a release from liability for ordinary negligence.” Platzer, supra 104 Cal.App.4th at 1258. Moreover, California courts have “consistently” declined to apply a public policy rationale to invalidate release of liability agreements in a recreational sports context as such activities are done on a voluntary basis and, therefore, are not essential activities having great public import. Platzer, supra at 1259. Thus, although Defendant is a common carrier and owes a heightened duty to its passengers, neither the law nor public policy prevented Defendant from utilizing a release of liability to limit its liability for its own negligence, except that such release/limitation may not apply to gross negligence. See, California Civil Code section 2175; Platzer, supra 104 Cal.App.4th at 1258.
Release of Liability
Plaintiff asserts the Release of Liability was never agreed to by Plaintiff or his girlfriend, Katrina Vaysman (who purchased Plaintiff’s life ticket), in that neither recalls reading, signing or otherwise agreeing to the release of liability. However, the Court finds no material issue of fact exists as to whether the release of liability applies in this case.
It is undisputed Katrina Vaysman, Plaintiff’s girlfriend and mother of his two children, purchased ski tickets for Plaintiff and his sons, and, in doing so, electronically agreed to a Sugar Bowl Release of Liability agreement on Plaintiff’s behalf. Without agreeing to the terms of the release, the tickets could not have been purchased. Failing to read the release and/or thoroughly understand it before acknowledging and agreeing to its terms does not create a triable issue of fact such as to preclude summary judgment on the issue of whether the release applies. Assuming Ms. Vaysman did not read and/or understand the release, the evidence is undisputable the language of the release is clear and unequivocal, and Ms. Vaysman agreed to it on Plaintiff’s behalf. Moreover, Plaintiff either requested Ms. Vaysman purchase his lift ticket or expected her to do so. Regardless, Plaintiff was aware she was the purchaser of his lift ticket as she had done previous times.
In purchasing Plaintiff’s ticket, Ms. Vaysman had to acknowledge reading and agreeing to the terms of Sugar Bowl’s release/waiver of liability. Such release of liability provides, in pertinent part, “TO THE FULLEST EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, I AGREE TO EXPRESSLY ASSUME ALL RISKS OF INJURY OR DEATH that might be associated with or arise out of my participation in the Activities or use of the facilities… By executing this agreement, I declare under penalty of perjury that I am doing so only for myself and/or for persons who have authorized me to do so on their behalf. If I execute this document on behalf of another person, I am acting as the agent for that person.”
Plaintiff, as principal, is responsible to third parties (Sugar Bowl) for “contracts and obligations of his agent with third persons made in the course of the business of the agency and within the scope of the agent’s powers as such ….” Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1178. “[A] principal is
charged only with the knowledge of an agent acquired while the agent was acting in that
role and within the scope of his or her authority as an agent.” RSB Vineyards, LLC v.
Orsi (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1089, 1099. Agency may be implied from the circumstances and conduct of the parties. Michelson v. Hamada (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1579. The liability waiver itself expressly anticipates the situation of signing for another person, and the person agreeing to the waiver is required to affirm that they have legal authority to enter the agreement on behalf of others.
Here, Plaintiff intended Ms. Vaysman purchase his lift ticket, the ticket purchase utilized Plaintiff’s own name and email address, and Plaintiff, an experienced skier who had skied at Sugar Bowl and many other resorts previously, ratified the agency when he used the lift ticket.
A release agreement like the one in the present case is enforceable as to injuries suffered while skiing. See, Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1365. While Plaintiff, in his opposition, alleges he did not get his injuries while skiing, the act of getting off a chairlift is part and parcel of skiing. Moreover, getting injured whil getting off a chairlift is a risk inherent in the sport of skiing and an act which falls within the scope of the release. The Court struggles to comprehend the argument a person who is getting off of a chairlift is not participating in the sport of downhill skiing. Here, Plaintiff asserts he has been skiing for many years, has skied at most, if not all, of the ski resorts surrounding Lake Tahoe, is an intermediate to advanced level skier, and had been riding chairlifts throughout the day at Sugar Bowl on January 29, 2022. In order to ski down the runs at the resort, one must utilize the chairlifts which involves getting on and off of them. The act of getting on and off a chairlift is part of the overall act of skiing. This is precisely what Plaintiff was doing when he was injured. Thus, there is no question Plaintiff was involved in the activity of skiing when he was injured while getting off the chairlift resulting in the general release applying to this action.
The scope of the release in this matter is broad. It specifically refers to assumption of “ALL RISKS OF INJURY OR DEATH that might be associated with or arise out of my participation in the Activities or use of the facilities.” Further, included in the list of facilities are “lifts”. Also included in the list of risks are “falling, loss of control, collisions with other skiers or snowboarders, [and] collisions with natural and man-made objects.”
Based on the plain, broad and unambiguous language of the release, Plaintiff’s action of getting off a ski lift and trying to avoid colliding with fallen skiers or snowboarders resulting in coming into contact with a rope falls within the scope of conduct for which “all risks of injury or death” were assumed by Plaintiff. Thus, the release operates as a complete bar to recovery by Plaintiff under the claims of ordinary negligence alleged in the Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff can only preclude summary judgment if he can show gross negligence on the part of Defendant or that Defendant unreasonably increased the risks inherent in the sport of skiing.
Gross negligence is generally a question for the trier of fact. Willhide-Michiulis, supra 25 Cal.App.5th at 363. However, a Court can find as a matter of law no genuine issue of material fact exists as to the issue of gross negligence such that a grant of summary judgment is appropriate. Id. at 364. In doing so, the Court must determine whether, in construing all facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it is possible Defendant’s conduct could be found by a trier of fact to constitute gross negligence.
Failure to perform a duty is ordinary negligence unless facts are alleged showing a “want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.” Id. at 358 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Here, the CACI jury instruction number 425 is helpful:
“Gross negligence is the lack of any care or an extreme departure
from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation
to prevent harm to oneself or to others. A person can be grossly negligent
by acting or by failing to act.”
Gross negligence is “either a ‘want of event scant care’” or “’an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.’” See, City of Santa Barbara, supra 41 Cal.4th at 754. Gross negligence “’falls short of a reckless disregard of consequences and differs from ordinary negligence on in degree, and not in kind.’” Gore v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 184, 197.
In relation to the instant matter, the Court finds a triable issue of material fact precluding summary judgement exists on the issue of whether or not Defendant acted with gross negligence when the lift operator failed to employ the emergency stop or slow button to better allow any fallen skiers/snowboarders to clear the chairlift off ramp area such that the skiers on the subsequent chair (Plaintiff’s chair) could depart the chair with an unobstructed exit area. While getting off a chairlift is an inherent risk of skiing, and Plaintiff assumed the risk of falling or even colliding with other persons while getting off the chairlift, the evidence, when liberally viewed in a light favorable to Plaintiff, suggests there could have been fallen patrons blocking the exit ramp, and there could have been sufficient time for the lift operator to observe the fallen patrons, determine the circumstances were such that the lift operator should have employed known and previously employed safety protocols (slowing or stopping the lift), and failing to do so might constitute gross negligence.
Further, the Court cannot make a determination as to the presence or absence of gross negligence based on the evidence before it. While the Court has some photographs, declarations and deposition transcripts, there is a lack of relevant evidence which could bear on the issue for a trier of fact, as well as a dispute in the evidence (whether there were fallen skiers/snowboarders blocking the exit ramp or not). Many factors will bear on the issue of gross negligence, and the Court simply cannot find, as a matter of law, whether Defendant acted grossly negligent or not. See, Shin v. Ahn, (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 499-500. See also, Luna v. Vela (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 102, 113.
When Defendant, employs a ski lift, trains a lift operator to observe its use and functionality including how to utilize common industry safeguards built into the lift design to prevent harm to its users, Defendant has a duty to operate the chairlift in a manner that is not grossly negligent. Such industry standard use can, under certain circumstances, include stopping or slowing the chair. In other words, Defendant, despite the release, still has a duty to provide services in a manner that is not “want of even scant care”, “an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct”, or unreasonably increase the harm inherent in the sport of skiing. See, City of Santa Barbara, Supra 41 Cal.4th at 754 (internal citations omitted); Luna, supra 169 Cal.App.4th at 110. Here, it is a question for the jury as to whether the failure to slow or stop the lift, the failure to more thoroughly train a lift operator on when to employ the slow or stop button constitute an extreme departure from what a reasonable careful person would do in the same situation to prevent hard to others.
(The Court notes parenthetically, had Plaintiff fallen while getting off the chairlift due to colliding with his own (known or unknown) chair mates, the Court would feel very differently as such would clearly be an inherent risk of skiing, and it would be obvious any action or inaction by the lift operator could not have prevented such injury. In addition, the Court is not persuaded five (5) prior injuries sustained on the Jerome Hill lift would give rise to a duty for Sugar Bowl to alter its normal practices. There is no evidence as to what caused those injuries.)
Primary Assumption of Risk
“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.” Gregory v. Cott (2014) 59 Cal.4th 996, 1001. “Primary assumption of risk occurs where a plaintiff voluntarily participates in a sporting event or activity involving certain inherent risks. For example, an errantly thrown ball in baseball or a carelessly extended elbow in basketball are considered inherent risks of those respective sports.” Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 746, 751. Owners and operators “owe participants the duty not to not unreasonably increase the risks of injury” beyond those inherent in the activity. Griffin v. Haunted Hotel, Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 490, 499.
Thus, when primary assumption of risk applies, liability on the part of a defendant requires a showing the defendant unreasonably increased the inherent risk of injury while participating in the activity. Here, since the Court has found the release of liability is binding on Plaintiff, and the conduct of Defendant falls within the scope of the release, the issue of the primary assumption of risk doctrine is moot. In other words, “in cases involving an express assumption of risk there is no cause to analyze the activity the complaining party is involved in or the relation of the parties to that activity.” Willhide-Michiulis, supra at 357 (citations omitted). Moreover, once the activity is found to fall within the scope of the express assumption/release, the only issue for the Court to decide is whether Defendant’s actions constituted gross negligence which cannot be “absolved” by a release. Id. at 357 – 358.
Despite this, the Court will indicate its belief, even absent the application of the release, falling while getting on or off a chairlift is an inherent risk of skiing. Moreover, having persons fall while getting off the chairlift in front of your chair is also a common occurrence and, thus, an inherent risk of skiing. Thus, to preclude summary judgment based on the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, Plaintiff must show a triable issue of material fact evidencing Defendant unreasonably increased the inherent risk of skiing.
Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate Defendant unreasonably increased the risks of injury beyond those inherent in the activity of skiing so as to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact precluding summary judgment based on the assumption of risk doctrine. Placing ropes around the area where the chairs on the ski lift turn to head back down the hill is a reasonable practice to ensure skiers and snowboarders do not enter an area of travel of the chairlifts where they will be injured. Moreover, the rope appears clearly visible in all photographs provided by both parties. While not a large thick rope, the rope color contrasts with the white snowy background, it has stringers to better alert an individual the rope is there, and Plaintiff’s vision and view of the rope were not obscured. Here, Plaintiff asserts gross negligence on the part of Defendant, because the rope was not visible. The Court does not find a reasonable trier of fact could make such a finding. Further, no 3’ X 3’ rock appears to exist in the area where Plaintiff fell. The photos taken by Defendant shortly after the fall show no rock exists, and Plaintiff admitted in his deposition he does not know what he fell on.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff asserts he was not skiing when his injuries were allegedly exacerbated by the ski patroller taking him down the ski hill in a toboggan, the Court is again not persuaded. The possibility of being injured and having to be taken down the hill on a toboggan is a foreseeable risk of skiing, and the risk of being injured while being taken down in a toboggan is an inherent risk of skiing. Martine v. Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 715, 724. Moreover, the Court does not find a triable issue of fact the ski patroller’s actions exacerbated Plaintiff’s injuries. The only evidence put forth for such assertion is Plaintiff’s indication the ride down the mountain was extremely painful, bumpy and the toboggan was pulled from side to side while going downhill. Nothing about these assertions seems out of the ordinary. Ski hills tend to have bumps, ski patrollers must travel side to side to ensure control while skiing, and Plaintiff suffered some serious injuries which would make any amount of movement in a toboggan painful. The ski patrol’s asserted apology for being understaffed similarly does not create a triable issue of material fact as, whether Sugar Bowl was or wasn’t understaffed in its emergency room or with ski patrol staff, there is nothing to suggest such contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries in any way. Plaintiff’s claim set forth in the Complaint must be backed up by asserted facts which result in a triable issue of material fact. As to this issue, they are not. Yet, even if there were facts supporting Plaintiff’s assertion his injuries were exacerbated by the toboggan ride, such would be an inherent risk of skiing which would also not rise to the level of gross negligence. Thus, such a claim would be within the scope of both the assumed risks of skiing and the release of liability. “That one might be injured during [a] descent on a rescue toboggan [is a risk] inherent in the sport of skiing”, and there is no evidence to support the contention Defendant’s ski patroller acted grossly negligent or in any way which increased that inherent risk.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
- CU0001660 Alana Bellucci vs. Chad Yates et al
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Discovery is granted.
Plaintiff shall serve further verified responses, without objections, to Defendant as to Form Interrogatories 305.1, 305.11-305.14, 309.1, 309.2, 311.1-311.3, 313.1313.2, 314.1-314.2, and 326.1, Special Interrogatories 3-8, 10-12, 15-17, 22-3, Requests for Admission 1-27 and 29—as concerns Form Interrogatory No. 326.1—and Requests for Production 1-13. Such verified responses shall be served by May 28, 2025.
Defendants are awarded sanctions in the amount of $4,500.00 which shall be paid no later than thirty (30) days from service of the notice of entry of this order.
4. CU0001662 Pankaj Gupta vs. Bamboo Ide8 Insurance Services et al
Defendant Bamboo’s Demurrer
Defendant Bamboo’s Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part.
“'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. See also, Accord McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 72, 79.
The Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract is sustained without leave to amend. The claim fails to state sufficient facts against Bamboo as Sutton issued the insurance policy, Bamboo is not a party to the contract, and, thus, Bamboo cannot be liable. Bamboo is not the proper defendant here, as it is a licensed insurance broker/agent appointed by Sutton pursuant to Ins. Code § 1704(a) and not an insurance company. As the agent of the insurer, Bamboo is not a party to the contract sued upon. “An insurance policy is, fundamentally, a contract between the insurer and the insured.” Stein v. International Ins. Co., (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 609, 613. Plaintiff “cannot assert a claim for breach of contract against one who is not a party to the contract.” Tri-Continent International Corp. v. Paris Savings & Loan Assn., ( 1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1359.
The Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation is sustained with leave to amend. The claim fails to state sufficient facts and further fails to meet the specificity requirement to maintain this cause of action against Bamboo, such that the “facts” alleged do not sufficiently relate to the elements necessary to prove this cause of action. Mere negligence in the handling of an insurance claim does not support recovery in tort against an insurer, much less the insurer’s agent. Adelman v. Associated International Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 352, 356 [“An insured can recover in tort against an insurer for the improper handling of a claim only upon a showing that the insurer acted in bad faith; as we explain, such a showing requires something more than simple negligence.”] Plaintiff has failed to allege bad faith.
The Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”) is sustained with leave to amend. This claim also fails to state sufficient facts in the same fashion Plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts in support of the Second Cause of Action. It is well settled NIED is not a separate tort, but rather, part of the law of negligence with the usual elements for negligence apply.
The Demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief is sustained without leave to amend. As indicated above, Bamboo is not a party to the insurance contract. Plaintiff alleges there is an actual controversy between the parties as to [his] “rights, obligations, and coverages under the subject policy.” [Complaint at ¶ 31] Bamboo is not a party to the subject policy, but Sutton’s agent. Therefore, there is no actual controversy between Bamboo and Plaintiff as to his rights under the policy.
Last, the Demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is sustained without leave to amend. This clam is a derivative tort to a breach of contract claim. As this moving defendant is not a party to the contract, this derivative claim likewise fails.
“Where a demurrer is sustained or a motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to the original complaint, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion if the pleading does not show on its face that it is incapable of amendment.” Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1852.
Any Amended Complaint shall be served and filed within ten (10) calendar days after service of the Notice of Entry of this Order.
Sutton’s Demurrer
Defendant Sutton’s Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part.
“'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.
The demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract is sustained with leave to amend. The claim fails to state sufficient facts against Sutton. Plaintiff contends the insurance policy issued by Sutton was rescinded but does not argue the rescission was invalid. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10.) Absent facts to support any contention to challenge the validity of the rescission, the insurance policy is void ab initio and, thus, absent a valid existing contract, it cannot be breached. LA Sound USA, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1259, 1266.
The demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation is sustained with leave to amend. The cause of action fails to state sufficient facts, nor does it meet the specificity requirement to maintain this cause of action against Sutton.
The demurrer to the Third Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is sustained with leave to amend. This claim also fails to state sufficient facts as Sutton owes no duty of good faith and fair dealing and, thus, cannot owe a duty giving rise to this claim. Coleman v. Republic Indem. Ins. Co. of Calif. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 403, 415-416.
Further, the Second and Third causes of action relate to the handling of the claim, and it is well settled an action for negligent claim handling is not a legally cognizable theory under California law. Plaintiff has failed to plead any bad faith handling.
The demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief is sustained with leave to amend. The claim fails to state sufficient facts as to the existence of an actual controversy, because Plaintiff does not allege that the rescission was invalid.
The demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is sustained with leave to amend. This claim fails to state sufficient facts for the same reasons as the breach of contract claim above.
“Where a demurrer is sustained or a motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to the original complaint, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion if the pleading does not show on its face that it is incapable of amendment.” Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1852.
Any Amended Complaint shall be served and filed within ten (10) calendar days after service of the Notice of Entry of Order.
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 appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument.
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.
April 28, 2025 - Department A Probate Tentative Rulings
- PR0000436 In Re the Matter of: Walter Scott Ricker
No appearances are required. The Petition for Final Distribution is granted as prayed.
- TP17-6651 In the Matter of MANUEL DEJESUS MIRANDACOTA
No appearances are required. The Petition for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, and Fees for Conservator is granted as prayed.