DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV084911·alameda·Civil·Substitution of Party
Hearing about 2 months agoThe Court orders the parties to appear; Plaintiff ordered to file missing exhibits by the time of the hearing.

MURPHY vs HERB THOMAS, CONSERVATOR OF THE ESTATE OF RAYMOND SAUNDERS, et al.

Motion for Order SUBSTITUTING PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR DECEASED DEFENDANT

Hearing date
Jul 9, 2026
Department
512
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffFrank Murphy
DefendantRaymond Saunders
DefendantHerb Thomas

Ruling

24CV084911: MURPHY vs HERB THOMAS, CONSERVATOR OF THE ESTATE OF RAYMOND SAUNDERS, et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order SUBSTITUTING PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR DECEASED DEFENDANT; filed by Frank Murphy (Plaintiff) CRS# 119279188127 in Department 512

Tentative Ruling - 07/07/2026 Elizabeth Riles

On plaintiff Frank Murphy’s (“Plaintiff”) unopposed Motion for Order Substituting Personal Representative for Deceased Defendant Raymond Saunders (“Decedent”), the Court ORDERS THE PARTIES TO APPEAR at the hearing on Thursday, 7/9/2026 at 2:30 p.m..

The moving Herlihy Declaration references four exhibits that are not attached to the copy of the declaration filed with the Court. Further, Plaintiff has not provided Dept. 512 with an electronic courtesy copy containing the exhibits at dept512courtesycopy@alameda.courts.ca.gov, Dept. 512’s email address for electronic courtesy copies.

Because the requirement to provide evidence of Plaintiff’s compliance with CCP § 377.41 and Probate Code § 9370 is mandatory, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve and file a copy of the Herlihy Declaration containing the missing exhibits as soon as reasonably possible and in no event later than before the commencement of the 7/9/2026 hearing. Plaintiff shall provide Dept. 512’s courtesy copy email address above with a courtesy copy of the re-filed Declaration prior to the hearing. If the re-filed declaration establishes Plaintiff’s performance of the statutory requirements, the Court will be inclined to grant the unopposed Motion.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share