DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
PR23559·napa·Civil·Conservatorship
Hearing todayCONTINUED

Conservatorship of Larissa Anne Baity

REVIEW HEARING

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
Dept. B
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 22, 2028

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

RespondentLarissa Anne Baity

Ruling

Conservatorship of Ariel J. Hughes 26-44501

REVIEW HEARING

APPEARANCE REQUIRED

Conservatorship of Larissa Anne Baity PR23559

REVIEW HEARING

TENTATIVE RULING: After a review of the matter, the Court finds the Co- Conservators are acting in the best interest of the Conservatee. Thus, the case is set for a Review - Biennial hearing in two years on August 22, 2028, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B The Court Investigator shall prepare a biennial investigator report for the biennial review hearing date. The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.

CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

City of Napa v. Brian R. Silver et al 25CV000143

CITY’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

TENTATIVE RULING: The Clerk is directed to STRIKE the Opposition filed August 17, 2026, by Respondent Brian Silver. The motion is GRANTED IN PART. The City is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $14,415, costs of suit in the amount of $1,926.36 and costs of enforcement in the amount of $2,448.72 for a total of $18,790.08.

The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice 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 hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

The instant Motion was originally set for hearing on July 28, 2026. On July 20, 2026, Respondent Brian Silver applied, ex parte, for an order continuing the hearing and resetting the deadline for filing opposition thereto. The Court granted the application, and on July 22, 2026, entered an Order in the form proposed by Mr. Silver. That Order provides that “[t]he hearing on Petitioner City of Napa’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees . . . is continued to August 20, 2026 . . .. [¶]

10

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