the court granted the petition, ordered Petitioner to deposit the surplus funds with the court, and set a hearing for May 28, 2026, to address any and all claims to the surplus funds. The court explained it could not grant Yang’s claim at that time because the code required the hearing on any claims to surplus funds to be conducted after the funds are deposited with the court and after the court clerk gave notice to all potential claimants. The court further explained Yang could stand on his original claim or supplement additional information.
On or about March 19, 2026, Petitioner deposited the surplus funds with the court. The court conducted the hearing to address the claims to the surplus funds on May 28, 2026. Unfortunately, it appeared notice of that hearing was not served on all potential claimants at the proper addresses. Accordingly, the court continued the hearing to today’s date and directed the clerk to give notice at the various addresses specified in the court’s minute order. Notice has now been given at those various addresses.
Yang is the only claimant who has submitted a claim to the court regarding the surplus funds, and he has submitted sufficient evidence to support that claim. Although Shuo Jin (Jin) submitted a claim to Petitioner seeking both her onehalf of the remaining sale proceeds and Yang’s one-half, claiming Yang quit claimed his claim to her, Jin has not submitted any claim to the court regarding the funds on deposit. The court notes the record shows Yang and Jin were equal owners of the property and Petitioner previously distributed one-half of the remaining sale proceeds to Jin. What is on deposit with the court is the other half that Jin initially tried to claim as well, but has been shown to belong to Yang.
Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Yang’s claim as to the surplus funds on deposit with the court. The clerk’s office is directed to distribute such proceeds to Yang. To receive those funds, Yang must submit a proposed order for signature by the court that identifies his claim, the court’s order granting his claim, the precise amount of his claim, to whom the check for the surplus funds should be made payable, and the address to which that check should be sent. Yang’s attorney is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
9. Palmer v. Mobilitas OFF CALENDAR based on notice of withdrawal filed on July 9, 2026
Insurance Company 2026-01563452 10. City of Placentia vs. The Testate and Intestate Successors of H. Michael Ford, Deceased, and Lynn D. Ford, Deceased 2025-01502207 Before the court is the continued hearing on the petition for order to abate substandard building and appointment of a receiver filed by petitioner City of Placentia (Petitioner) against respondent Barry Rae, Solely in his Capacity as The Special Administrator of the Estate of Lynn D. Ford (Respondent).
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?”
On October 22, 2025, the parties filed a Compliance Stipulation and Order to Continue Hearing on Receivership Petition, which was approved by the court (Stipulated Order). Pursuant to the Stipulated Order, Respondent agreed to rehabilitate the subject property and bring it into full compliance, and the parties agreed to continue the hearing on the petition. (ROA 25.)
The court has reviewed the most recent declarations filed by the parties, including the Declaration of Code Enforcement Supervisor Daniel Pivaroff, filed and July 10, 2026, and the Declaration of Barry Rae filed on July 16, 2026. The City continues to express its concern that progress on the property has been slow. Respondent identified specific improvements that have been made to the interior and exterior of the property, and identified items left to be completed. Respondent explains that delays were due to scheduling issues and shortages in the construction industry.
Counsel for all parties are ordered to appear for the hearing to further discuss the progress on the rehabilitation of the property and whether more time is warranted or whether it is appropriate to appoint a receive to finish the rehabilitation work. Remote appearances are acceptable.
11. Stewart vs. Three Phase Electric, Inc. 2022-01248530 Before the court is the “Motion for Sanctions of $20,000 Against Chase Bank; Motion to Make Chase Bank, NA Jointly and Severally Liable for Debtor Three Phase Electric, Inc. Et. Al, Debt as Regards Creditor Wallace Stewart, Et. Al Under California Civil Code 701.020 and 701.030; Motion to Compel Code-Compliant Responses to Bank Levy” filed by “Plaintiff.”
There are two plaintiffs and judgment creditors in this matter—i.e., Wallace Stewart and Desert Property Light Maintenance, Inc. (collectively, Plaintiffs)—but the notice of motion fails to identify which plaintiff is bringing