DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
26CV000429·napa·Civil·Name Change
GRANTED IN PART

In The Matter of Kathleen M Harris

PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME

Hearing date
May 5, 2026
Department
A
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Petition

Parties

PetitionerKathleen M. Harris

Ruling

(See Code Civ. Proc. §§1005, subd. (b) and 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) The proof of service indicates that notice and the moving documents were mailed on April 17, 2026, and electronically served on April 12, 2026. However, April 08, 2026, was the last day to timely serve notice by mail, and April 09, 2026 was the last day to electronically timely serve notice of the May 05, 2026, hearing.

The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

In The Matter of Kathleen M Harris 26CV000429

PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME

TENTATIVE RULING: The Petition is GRANTED IN PART.

The Petition is somewhat vague in that it lists four current last names, all purportedly for the same person. (See id. at ¶ 2.) However, the Order to Show Cause lists only one last name: Harris. (See id. at ¶ 1.) The Court notes that the Order to Show Cause has been published. Thus, the request to change the name Kathleen M. Harris to Kathleen M. Lamoureux is GRANTED. To the extent that Petitioner also sought to change other names by this same petition, the Petition is DENIED in those respects.

The Court will sign the Proposed Order, limited however, to changing the name Kathleen M. Harris to Kathleen M. Lamoureux.

If this is inconsistent with Petitioner’s wishes, she should request Oral Argument pursuant to Local Rule 2.9, and appear at hearing to discuss with the Court.

11

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share