Motion for Attorney Fees
Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT CM08 Commissioner Sharon M Anderson Temporary Judge Catherine Evans
Date: 07/29/2026
Court Room Rules and Notices
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.
# Case Name Tentative 1 Nunes – Trust; 30-2024-01396741
2 Marifet – Elder Abuse; 30-2025-01484031 Motion for Attorney Fees
Respondent Jangis Marifet (“Respondent”) brings this Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (ROA 36) pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657.03(t).
Pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code § 15657.03(t), the prevailing party in a request for an Elder Abuse Restraining Order (“EARO”) “may be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees.”
Respondent is the prevailing party in this case, having successfully defended against the Request for Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Restraining Order filed by Petitioner Hamit Marifet. (ROAs 1 and 33.) Thus, Respondent is entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.03(t).
A motion for attorney’s fees must filed and served within the time for filing a notice of appeal. (Cal. Rules of court, rule 3.1702(b).) Here, the court’s minute order of 12/12/25 is an appealable order. The motion was timely filed on 2/9/26. On 06/17/2026, the court heard the matter and continued it to today’s date so a valid, timely proof
of service could be filed. However, there is no proof of service of this motion. As such, the court DENIES Respondent’s motion for attorney fees and costs.
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?”
3 Ahmed – Probate; 30-2023-01338597
4 Smith – Trust; 30-2023-01355718 Smith – Trust (2023-01355718) Motion to Compel
Petitioner Brian Alexander Smith’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (Cheryl L. Barrett) (ROA 565) is DENIED.
By this motion, Petitioner seeks to compel Ferruzo & Ferruzo to produce documents in response to a subpoena, even though their custodian of records provided an affidavit stating the firm did not have the subpoenaed documents. The motion does not, however, the subject subpoena. Accordingly, the court has nothing upon which to issue an order compelling appearance and production. Further, Ferruzo & Ferruzo’s opposition is supported by a declaration from Cheryl L. Barrett attesting neither she nor she nor the firm has any documents responsive to the subpoena. Accordingly, there is nothing for the court to compel.
The court will provide notice.
5 Corona – Guardianship; 30-2024-01444318 Corona – Guardianship (2024-01444318) Motion to Be Relieved
Yerangi & Associates’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Juan Chacon and Edward Schrum (ROA 59) is GRANTED.
The court will sign the Proposed Order. Moving counsel is ORDERED to give notice to all parties to this action and file proof of service of the court’s