Estate of Jo Ellen Francis
Status Hearing re: Final Distribution
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
Estate of Jo Ellen Francis 25PR000061
STATUS HEARING RE: FINAL DISTRIBUTION
TENTATIVE RULING: The present Final Distribution hearing is ordered dropped from calendar. On May 11, 2026, Administrator filed a Petition to Approve First Account and Report and set the matter for hearing on June 17, 2026. The present Final distribution hearing is, therefore, redundant.
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Zachary Minor et al v. Napa County et al 25CV002355
[1] PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND COMPLETE DISCOVERY
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.
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.
A. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Plaintiffs Zachary Minor and Angela Minor (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6,2 for an order compelling Defendants to complete the discovery obligations required under the parties’ Settlement Agreement. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendants to:
1) Produce phone record information relating to Defendant Robert Yeager (“Yeager”) for the requested date ranges of October 14-16, 2024 and February 7-10, 2023. 2) Produce records identifying the telephone carrier(s) and device assignments associated with any county-issued phone used by Defendant Yeager during the relevant period. 3) Produce deletion or activity metadata relating to the recording device that is central piece of evidence in this matter, or permit inspection or forensic extraction of the device.
2 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.
9
Cited authorities
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.