Heller – Trust

TENTATIVE RULINGS

DEPT. CM7

If the tentative rulings below are for a past date, please try the following to force a refresh of this page:

For a Windows-based computer, press “Cntrl” + “Shift” + “R” at the same time. For an Apple computer, press “Cmd” + “Shift” + “R” at the same time.

Date: 07/22/2026

Case # Case Name Tentative

01462399 Heller – Trust TENTATIVE RULING

Case: Heller – Trust 01462399

Calendar No.: 2

Date: 07/22/2026 MOTION FOR OSC RE SANCTIONS (ROAs 51, 55, 59, and 63)

Petitioner Justin Word (“Petitioner”) moves for an order to set an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions and Improper Filings. Petitioner further seeks orders striking three Objections filed by Respondents Keith Daill and Robin Daill (“Respondents”); directing the court clerk to not accept future filings from Respondents; and imposing monetary sanctions to deter further misuse of the court’s time and resources.

Procedural Issues Concerning the Instant Motion

It seems Petitioner has filed the same motion four times, as ROAs 51, 55, 59, and 63 appear to be identical. Likewise, the points and authorities (ROAs 42 and 46) and the declarations (ROAs 44 and 49) filed in support of the motion appear to be identical. Counsel should advise the court if these were meant to be separate filings.

The court notes that Petitioner filed a Reply (ROA 117) under the assumption that Respondents intended their “Motion to Withdraw” (ROA 113) to be an opposition to the instant motion. For purposes of this motion, the court disregards the Respondents’ Motion to Withdraw (ROA 113) and, therefore, disregards the Reply (ROA 117).

Motion for Sanctions

Regardless of whether sanctions are requested by motion of a party, by the court on its own motion, or by an Order to Show Cause set by the court, there must be a statutory basis for imposing sanctions.

Sanctions Per CCP §§ 128.5 and 128.7

Petitioner asserts that sanctions should be imposed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7 as a result of Respondents’ “repeated filing of improper, noncompliant, and procedurally defective objections, more specifically: (1) the April 23, 2025 ‘Objection’ (the ‘April Objection’); (2) the July 7, 2025 ‘Objection’ (the ‘July Objection’); and (3) the October 22, 2025 ‘Objection’ (the ‘October Objection’) (collectively the ‘Objections’).” (ROA 51, Mot. 2:1-4.)

Petitioner’s request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7 must be denied for two separately sufficient reasons.

First, motions made pursuant to either Section 128.5 or Section 128.7 must be made separately from all other motions. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 128.5(f)(1)(A) and 128.7(c)(1).)

Second, both statutes contain safe harbor provisions. Subdivision (f)(1)(B) of Section 128.5 and subdivision (c)(1) of Section 128.7 require a 21-day period during which a party who is served with a motion for sanctions may avoid sanctions by withdrawing the challenged pleading.

Strict compliance with the safe harbor requirement is a necessary precursor to a motion for sanctions under Sections 128.5 and 128.7. Its absence subjects any order granting a motion to reversal. (Galleria Plus, Inc. v. Hanmi Bank ("Galleria") (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 535, 538; see Martorana v. Marlin & Saltzman (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 685, 698-700 [noncompliance with Section 128.7(c)(1) may be raised for first time on appeal in appropriate situation].) Because compliance with the safe harbor is a prerequisite to recovering sanctions, the burden is on the party seeking the sanctions to ensure the full safe harbor is provided. (Li v. Majestic Industry Hills, LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 585, 594.)

Here, there is no evidence that Petitioner complied with the safe harbor requirements.

Sanctions pursuant to sections 128.5 and 128.7 may be sought by a party via motion or by the court on its own motion. Either way, the party to be sanctioned must be afforded the 21-day safe harbor period within which to correct or withdraw the offending document. (Li v. Majestic Industry Hills LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 585, 591, Fn. 4.) Asking the court to set an Order to Show Cause to impose sanctions does not obviate the need to comply with the safe harbor provision.

Sanctions Per CCP § 177.5

Petitioner further argues that Respondents should be sanctioned for the filing of defective Objections pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.

Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 states in relevant part, as follows:

A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court. For the purposes of this section, the term “person” includes a witness, a party, a party's attorney, or both.

(Emphasis added.)

Petitioner claims that Respondents violated the court’s 7/28/25 Order to file an Objection that complies with the Probate Code by filing the October Objection that was not Code-compliant.

However, the 7/28/25 Minute Order does not order Respondents to file a Code-compliant Objection. It states, “Court notes Objection will require verification and affirmative request for relieve present in Objection will not be considered.” (ROA 34.) The court also referred Respondents to self-help resources. Thus, the 7/28/25 Minute Order reflects that the court merely noted the procedural deficiencies with the then-pending Objection. The only orders made were for the parties to meet and confer regarding any objections. (Id.)

The court is not persuaded that it should impose sanctions on Respondents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.

Sanctions Per CRC, Rule 2.30

Finally, Petitioner seeks sanctions pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.30.

Rule 2.30 is only applicable to violations of the California Rules of Court. (CRC, Rule 2.30(a) and (b).) It is not applicable to violations of statutory procedure.

Subdivision (c) of Rule 2.30 states in relevant part:

A party's motion for sanctions must (1) state the applicable rule that has been violated, (2) describe the specific conduct that is alleged to have violated the rule, and (3) identify the attorney, law firm, party, witness, or other person against whom sanctions are sought. The court on its own motion may issue an order to show cause that must (1) state the applicable rule that has been violated, (2) describe the specific conduct that appears to have violated the rule, and (3) direct the attorney, law firm, party, witness, or other person to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against them for violation of the rule.

(Emphasis added.)

Here, the only California Rule of Court that Petitioner claims Respondents violated is Rule 7.51. (ROA 51, Mot., 2:5-7.) Rule 7.51 governs the service of a Notice of Hearing. The Respondents were not required to serve a Notice of Hearing with the Objections. (Prob. Code § 17203.)

The failure to verify the Objections is a violation of Probate Code section 1021(a)(2). The failure to serve counsel with the Objections is a violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 465. These are not violations of the California Rules of Court and thus sanctions are not recoverable under Rule 2.30.

Other Requests

Petitioner further requests that the court issue orders striking the Objections and directing the court clerk not to accept future filings of Respondents.

A motion to strike an improper pleading must be made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436.

A motion for a prefiling order must be made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7.

For reasons stated above, the entirety of this motion is DENIED as procedurally defective.

Counsel for Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

01359872 Yale – Trust TENTATIVE RULING

Case: Yale – Trust 01359872

Calendar No.: 4

Date: 07/22/2026

MOTION TO COMPEL (ROA 371)

Petitioner Douglas Yale (“Petitioner”), in propria persona, moves for an order compelling third party Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) to comply with a deposition subpoena.

In opposition, BANA states that the Notices to Consumer did not indicate that the proper consumer had been served because the Trustee was only named as an individual. Once BANA confirmed with Petitioner that the proper consumer had been served, it complied with the subpoena by producing documents on 7/8/26. (ROA 466.)

The court’s records do not reflect that Petitioner has met and conferred regarding the production, and no updated separate statement has been filed.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED as moot. If Petitioner is unsatisfied with the production, he must meet and confer and file a new motion.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling on BANA and on all parties who have appeared in this action.

01483366 Aaron – Trust TENTATIVE RULING

Case: Aaron – Trust 01483366

Calendar No.: 5

Date: 07/22/2026 MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING AMENDED LIS PENDENS (ROA 168)