Aaron – Trust

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

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)

On 11/13/25, Scot Williams (“Scot”), in propria persona, filed this motion for court approval of the filing of an amended notice of pendency of action. (ROA 168.)

In Opposition to this motion, Ryan Williams (“Ryan”) informs the court that the subject property was sold on 2/4/26 with Scot’s approval. (ROA 450.)

In Reply, Scot argues that the court can still grant or deny the request. (ROA 452.)

On the contrary, the court cannot grant the request to approve the recording of a lis pendens against a property that is no longer subject to the instant probate proceeding, as there is no longer a “real property claim” pending. (Code Civ. Proc. § 405.21.)

Thus, the motion is DENIED as moot.

Ryan requests sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 128.5. While the court agrees that this motion could have been withdrawn to save the parties and the court time and resources, Ryan’s request for sanctions must be denied.

First, requests for sanctions pursuant to Section 128.5 must be made by a motion separate from all other motions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5(f)(1)(A).)

Second, Section 128.5 requires a 21-day period during which a party who is served with a motion for sanctions may avoid sanctions by withdrawing the challenged pleading. (Code. Civ. Proc. § 128.5(f)(1)(B).) There is no evidence that Ryan complied with the 21-day safe harbor provision.

Finally, the court notes that sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedural 128.5 may have likely been denied on the merits, as well, since the underlying motion was meritorious when filed.

Scot is ordered to serve notice of this ruling.

[Motion Type]

Ronglien – TENTATIVE RULING 01350410 Probate Case: Ronglien – Probate 01350410