DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24PR198048·santaclara·Probate·Probate
Hearing 26 days agoDENIED

The Fazzio Family Trust

motion to compel third party Henry Decruz to attend his deposition

Hearing date
Jul 23, 2026
Department
2
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffKatherine Rodda
PlaintiffAnthony V. Fazzio
OtherAnthony J. Fazzio
DefendantFidelis E. Campion
DefendantFidelis De Cruz
OtherHenry Decruz

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 2, Honorable Amber Rosen, Presiding Audrey Nakamoto, Courtroom Clerk

191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone 408.882-2120

PROBATE LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: July 23, 2026 TIME: 10:00 A.M.

TO CONTEST THE RULING: YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING OR NO OBJECTIONS WILL BE HEARD – see California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) and Civil Local Rule 8.D:

(1) Call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. (2) Notify the other side by phone or email before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to appear and contest the ruling

FINAL ORDERS: The prevailing party shall prepare the order unless otherwise ordered. (See California Rule of Court 3.1312.)

TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING: The Court strongly prefers in person appearances. If you must appear virtually, click on the below link or copy and paste into your internet browser and scroll down to Department 2. https://www.scscourt.org/general_info/ra_teams/video_hearings_teams.shtml

COURT REPORTERS: The court does not provide official court reporters for civil/probate law and motion hearings. See court website for policy and forms for court reporters at hearing

State and local Court Rules prohibit recording of court proceedings without a Court order.

TROUBLESHOOTING TENTATIVE RULINGS If do not see this week’s tentative rulings, they have either not yet been posted or your web browser cache (temporary internet files) is accessing a prior week’s rulings. “REFRESH” or “QUIT” your browser and reopen it, or adjust your internet settings to see only the current version of the web page. Your browser will otherwise access old information from old cookies even after the current week’s rulings have been posted.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 24PR198048 The Fazzio Family Trust Click or scroll to line 1 for tentative ruling. Court will issue the final order. LINE 2 25PR201603 Conservatorship of Gilbert Click or scroll to line 2 for tentative ruling. Court Marosi will issue the final order. LINE 3

Calendar line 1 Case Name: The Fazzio Family Trust Case No: 24PR198048

Petitioners Katherine Rodda and Anthony V. Fazzio (“Petitioners”) are the children of Anthony J. Fazzio (“Decedent”). Prior to his death, Decedent married Fidelis E. Campion a.k.a. Fidelis De Cruz (“Respondent”) and, in 2019, he amended the Fazzio Family Trust to disinherit Petitioners and leave the bulk of the assets to Respondent. Decedent also recorded a deed transferring his home in Campbell to Respondent. Petitioners initiated this action on September 9, 2024 by filing their Petition to Invalidate Trust Instruments; to Invalidate Deed; Financial Elder Abuse; Disinheritance; Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

Currently before the court is Petitioners’ motion to compel third party Henry Decruz (“Decruz”), Respondent’s brother, to attend his deposition. The motion is unopposed. The motion initially was scheduled for hearing on May 18, 2026 but the court (Hon. Amber Rosen) continued the hearing so that Petitioners could serve Decruz with the motion. The court informed Petitioners that the hearing would be continued and ordered them to properly serve Decruz prior to the continued hearing date.

At the hearing on the motion, Petitioners’ counsel represented that Decruz had not been served with the motion and was evading service of same. Counsel represented that Petitioners would be filing an ex parte request to serve Decruz via alternate means. No such ex parte application has been filed. On July 8, 2026, Petitioners again filed a notice of motion with an attached proof of service that does not show service on Decruz.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, upon which Petitioners rely, has been interpreted to impose the notice and hearing requirements generally applicable to motions. (Titmas v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 738, 743, quoting St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d 82, 86.) Code of Civil Procedure 1005, subdivision (b) requires the moving party to serve “all moving and supporting papers” at least 16 court days before the hearing. The moving party must also file a proof of service five court days before the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c).) Petitioners have not established that they have served Decruz with the motion.

Given that the court has already granted a continuance to allow for service of the motion on Decruz, the motion is DENIED.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share