STATUS CONFERENCE RE: STATUS OF SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN FLOWERS FOOD
Conservatorship of Jurado, Francisco Jr. 26-61496
REVIEW HEARING
APPEARANCE REQUIRED
Conservatorship of: Lee James El Gal 26-66178
REVIEW HEARING
TENTATIVE RULING: After a review of the matter, the Court finds the Conservator is acting in the best interest of the Conservatee. Thus, the matter is set for a Review – Biennial hearing in two years, on July 14, 2028, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. The Court Investigator shall prepare a biennial investigator report for the next hearing date. The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.
Conservatorship of Ashley Martinez 25PR000128
REVIEW – 1ST YEAR
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to August 12, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A to allow the Conservator to file: (1) Notice of Conservatee’s Rights (Judicial Council form GC-341) mailed to relatives of the proposed Conservatee within the second degree; and (2) Care Plan (Judicial Council form GC-355/356). The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.
Conservator is encouraged to contact the Court’s Self-Help Center, located on the lower level of the Historic Courthouse at 825 Brown Street, for assistance.
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Eduardo Perez Mendoza et al v. Ronkar Deliveries LLC 23CV001390 Eduardo Perez Mendoza et al v. Ronkar Deliveries LLC 24CV002048
STATUS CONFERENCE RE: STATUS OF SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN FLOWERS FOOD
APPEARANCE REQUIRED to discuss a briefing schedule on the remaining issues, raised in the motions to compel arbitration pending in both matters, following the United States
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Flowers Food, Inc., et al. v. Brock (2026) 146 S.Ct. 1358 (No. 24-935) (Flowers Food).
The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Status Report in 23CV001390 and Plaintiff’s Status Report in 24CV002048. It appears to the Court that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Flowers Food confirms Plaintiffs’ position, and the Court’s inclination as expressed in its March 5, 2026 Minute Order in 24CV002048, at page 6, that Plaintiffs fall under the “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” exemption under the FAA, section 1, and, therefore, the FAA does not apply to the instant matters. The remaining issues in the pending motions to compel arbitration appear to be Plaintiff’s defenses to the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement (i.e., the CAA bars arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendant waived its right to arbitrate, and the agreement is unconscionable).
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?”
Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to direct further briefing on those remaining issues under the CAA and California law (not the FAA or Federal law). Counsel is required to appear to discuss the scope of, and schedule for, further briefing.
Nick-O and Sons et al v. Rolando Herrera et al 24CV000022
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE AND RELATED TORTS
TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is OVERRULED. Moving Defendants are granted 20 calendar days from entry of the instant ruling to answer the Second Amended Complaint.
The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 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. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
1. Nature of Demurrer
Defendants Rolando Herrera, Herrera Vineyard Leasing Company, LLC, Mi Sueño Winery, Inc., RREVPV, LLC dba Herrera Vineyard Management, Enterprise Wine Company, LLC, Rolando Herrera as Trustee of the Rolando and Lorena Herrera Family Trust, Lorena Herrera, and Lorena Herrera as Trustee of the Rolando and Lorena Herrera Family Trust's
3