REVIEW HEARING
2. There is no proof of personal service on the Proposed Conservatee of the Citation, issued May 21, 2026, as required pursuant to Probate Code sections 1823, subdivision (a) and 1824.
3. Petitioner is directed to submit a Proposed Order Appointing Legal Counsel (GC-006) for the proposed conservatee pursuant to Probate Code Section 1471, subdivision (c). Upon request, the Court may appoint the Public Defender to represent the proposed conservatee.
4. The Petition is not verified by petitioner Elizabeth Notaro as mandated by Probate Code, Section 1021. Petitioner is directed to file an amended verified petition.
Petitioners are encouraged to contact the Court’s Self-Help Center, located on the lower level of the Historic Courthouse at 825 Brown Street, for assistance.
Conservatorship of Marsha Makemson 26PR000115
PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROBATE CONSERVATOR OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE
APPEARANCE REQUIRED
Conservatorship of Rajeshwari Pandey 26PR000141
PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROBATE CONSERVATOR OF THE PERSON
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to August 11, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to permit petitioners to address the following issues:
(1) There is no Proof of Service on relatives within the second degree as mandated by Probat Code Sections 1821, subdivision (b), and 1822. (2) There is no proof of personal service on the Proposed Conservatee of the Citation, issued June 24, 2026, as mandated by Probate Code sections 1823, subdivision (a) and 1824. (3) There is no medical inability to attend hearing, (Judicial Counsel of California form GC-325) on file as mandated by Probate Code Section 1825, subdivision (a)(2).
Petitioners are encouraged to contact the Court’s Self-Help Center, located on the lower level of the Historic Courthouse at 825 Brown Street, for assistance.
Conservatorship of Lee Ann Sedgwick PR22875
REVIEW HEARING
TENTATIVE RULING: After a review of the matter, the Court finds the Coconservators are acting in the best interest of the Conservatee. Thus, the matter is set for a 14
Review – Biennial hearing in two years, on July 14, 2028, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B. The Court Investigator shall prepare a biennial investigator report for the next hearing date. The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Platte River Insurance Company v. William Deem et al 24CV000384
MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to September 3, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. Plaintiff is to provide timely, code-compliant notice of the continued hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to provide timely notice of the next hearing, the motion may be denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff Platte River Insurance Company moves, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(A) and Civil Code § 1717, for an order awarding attorney fees in favor of Plaintiff on its Complaint for breach of written indemnity agreement against Defendants William Deem and Kimberton Wines, LLC (Kimberton, and collectively Defendants).
“The court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question.” (Diaz v. Prof. Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204-05.) The last day to provide notice, by mail from Arizona, of the instant hearing was June 8, 2026. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§1005, subd. (b) [“all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing” and “if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by . . . 10 calendar days if . . . the place of mailing . . . is outside the State of California . . .”] The proof on file indicates service on June 15, 2026. Plaintiff, therefore, failed to provide adequate notice of the hearing date.
This is Plaintiff’s second failure to provide adequate notice of the hearing. Subsequent failure to do so may result in the Court denying the motion without prejudice.
15