Conservatorship of Valerie E. Walker

PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Conservatorship of Valerie E. Walker 24PR000050

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 May 12, 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.

CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Angelica Hernandez v. Estate of Jack Malan et al 25CV002200

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the Proposed Order.

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.

Defendant Estate of Jack Malan (“Defendant”) moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10,1 to quash service of summons on the ground that service was not effected on a legally cognizable defendant or on any person authorized by statute to accept service, and the Court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction.

Defendant argues “that an estate is not a legal entity capable of being sued. Claims against a decedent may proceed only against a duly appointed personal representative or other statutorily authorized individual. Here, no probate estate has been opened, no personal representative exists, and no such person is named in the pleading. Plaintiff’s attempt to proceed against a non-entity, coupled with service on an individual lacking legal authority to accept 1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.