Petition for Order Authorizing Compromise of Minor’s Claim
Gonzalez-Ramirez, or Suesan [sic] Kelly Hunt. (See Amended Petition at 11:2.) Moreover, there remains no proof of service of Notice of the instant hearing. The Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a matter that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question. (See Diaz v. Prof. Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204-05.)
In The Matter of The Marjorie L. Watson 2014 Revocable 26PR000111 Living Trust
VERIFIED PETITION FOR: 1. REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE; 2. APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE; 3. ACCOUNTING
APPEARANCE REQUIRED. The parties shall attend prepared to discuss whether any opposition is anticipated, whether the parties intend to submit on verified pleadings and affidavits (see Evangelho v. Presoto (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 615, 620), whether any discovery or other pre-hearing practice is anticipated, and whether the parties are willing to participate in informal settlement discussions or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings. Should any party desire an evidentiary hearing, the parties shall be prepared to provide the Court with an estimate for the length of the hearing, and to set the hearing on the Court’s calendar. Counsel are directed to meet and confer on the foregoing issues prior to the hearing.
Estate of George Glascock 26PR000132
PETITION FOR PROBATE OF WILL AND FOR LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADMINISTER UNDER THE INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT
TENTATIVE RULING: The Petition is GRANTED. Richard S. Thomas is appointed as probate referee. The matter is set for a Status Hearing Re: Final Distribution on July 30, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. The Status Hearing may be vacated or continued without appearances needed if, prior thereto, the personal representative files a petition for an order for final distribution or a report of status of administration pursuant to Probate Code section 12200. The clerk is directed to provide notice to the parties.
In The Matter of Elianna Alvarez 26PR000156
PETITION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE OF MINOR’S CLAIM (Pr.C. 3500 et seq.)
APPEARANCE REQUIRED. The papers are in order. However, there is no written attorney fee agreement in the file. Rather, Petitioner states that a true and correct copy of the agreement will be made available at the hearing. (Pet., Attachment 17a, Declaration of Hank G. Greenblatt, ¶ 5.) The Court requires a review of the agreement prior to granting a minor’s
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?”
compromise. Thus, counsel should appear with a copy of the attorney fee agreement for the Court’s review.
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Elizabeth Saldivar v. George Loudis et al 25CV000506
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
APPEARANCE REQUIRED
The Court has reviewed the Declaration of William Eason filed on July 27, 2026. That Declaration provides information regarding efforts at locating Plaintiff Elizabeth Saldivar. This is fundamentally inconsistent with the Declaration, of Katelyn P. Dembowski, in Support of Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel filed on May 26, 2026. Specifically, Ms. Dembowski declares under penalty of perjury “[a]ttorney has personally served the client with copies of the motion papers filed with this declaration. A copy of the proof of service will be filed with the court at least 5 days before the hearing.” There is no such proof of service in the Court’s file.
Moreover, the Court notes that the Judicial Council form Attorney Declaration provides a box corresponding to “[a]ttorney has been unable to confirm that the address is current or to locate a more current address for the client . . ..” That box was not checked in Ms. Dembowski’s Declaration.
Counsel is directed to appear to explain the foregoing inconsistencies to the Court.
M. David Jester v. Matthew Ospeck et al 25CV002143
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT THE KNOLLS, L.C. AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.
The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of
5