REVIEW – 1ST YEAR
v. Super. Ct. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 441, 456.) The Court notes that, upon entry by the Court, the OSC must be served on Mr. Archer in the same manner as a summons. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1015, 1016 (statutory provisions for service of motions do not apply to service of any paper to bring a party into contempt); see also Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. Super. Ct. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286-87 [“[u]nless the citee has concealed himself from the court, he must be personally served with the affidavit and the order to show cause; otherwise, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed”].)
**at 9:30 a.m.** Mark Andrews v. Richard Rockwell et al 24CV000304
DEFENDANT ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR CO. OF SAN FRANCISCO, LLC’S MOTION TO STRIKE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMURRER
TENTATIVE RULING: The Court has been informed that the parties stipulated to a continuance of the present matter to coincide with the pending Ex Parte Hearing in this matter. As such, the matter is CONTINUED to Friday, July 24, 2026, at 11:30 a.m. in Dept. A.
PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Estate of George W Turner 25PR000048
STATUS HEARING RE: FINAL DISTRIBUTION
APPEARANCE REQUIRED. There is no new Status Report on file. Petitioner is therefore directed to appear and update the Court on the status of the case.
Conservatorship of Joaquin Sebastian Reynaldo 25PR000065
REVIEW – 1ST YEAR
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to August 19, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to allow the Conservators to file: Care Plan (Judicial Council form GC-355/356). The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties, along with a copy of this Minute Order.
Conservatorship of James R. Gill 25PR000132
REVIEW – 1ST YEAR
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?”
TENTATIVE RULING: The Court sets the matter for an Accounting on September 02, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. The Review – 1st Year is CONTINUED to September 02, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A to coincide with the Accounting.
This is a conservatorship of the person and estate. (See 7/22/25 Minute Order.) There is no accounting on file as required pursuant to Probate Code section 2620, subdivision (a). All accounting documents (or a Request for Waiver of Accounting, Form GC-410) must be filed at least 30 days prior to the next hearing. The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Edwin Vincent, A minor et al v. Fred William Gallegos et al 22CV000060
CONFERENCE STATUS RE: STATUS OF SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION / MC-356
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to August 18, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A.
The Court is in receipt of the Declaration of Jacob Chobanian and the Amended Order Approving Compromise of Minor’s Claim, filed July 17, 2026, requesting that the settlement proceeds of $8,663.87 be directly deposited with Father and Guardian Ad Litem, Richard Vincent, instead of depositing in a blocked account as originally ordered. The Court notes it has authority for the July 17 request under Probate Code section 3411, subdivision (d). While the Court finds that good cause exists for the request based on the Chobanian Declaration, the Court requires a declaration from Father, signed under penalty of perjury, with the information contained in Paragraph 4 of the Chobanian Declaration.
Namely, Father’s Declaration shall include the reason for the request and an acknowledgement of his duty to use the proceeds solely for the Minor’s benefit. Once the Court receives Father’s Declaration, it will sign the July 17 Amended Proposed Order. Father’s Declaration shall be filed prior to the next hearing.
Jose Galvan v. Boardwalk Property Services, LLC et al 24CV001105
COMPLIANCE HEARING
TENTATIVE RULING: The Court has reviewed the Declaration of Nicole Bench, filed 7/8/26, and is satisfied that the terms of the Order Approving the Parties’ PAGA Settlement Agreement have been satisfied. The hearing is therefore VACATED.
Maria Consuelo Huerta De Mora v. Cintas Corporation No. 3 et al 25CV000955
[1] MOTION BY DEFENDANT MARIA CALDERON FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
4