Guardianship of Arianna Mae Perez et al

behalf of Reynolds Law LLP creates an attorney-client relationship between Plaintiffs and other attorneys with Reynolds Law LLP, specifically Defendant.

California courts have consistently answered that question in the affirmative. “Unless there is an agreement to the contrary, the retention of an attorney in a law firm constitutes the retention of the entire firm. (Streit v. Covington & Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 445, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 [‘by retaining a single attorney, a client establishes an attorney-client relationship with any attorney who is a partner of or is employed by the retained attorney’]; see Rest.3d Law Governing Lawyers, § 14, com. h, p. 132 [‘Many lawyers practice as partners, members, or associates of law firms [citation].

When a client retains a lawyer with such an affiliation, the lawyer’s firm assumes the authority and responsibility of representing that client, unless the circumstances indicate otherwise’]; 1 Mallen & Smith, Legal Malpractice, supra, Vicarious Liability, § 5.3 at p. 546 [‘Unless there is a specific agreement to the contrary, the retention of one partner of a law firm is a retention of the entire firm, so that any attorney in the firm may perform services’]; 1 Vapnek et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Professional Responsibility (The Rutter Group 2006) ¶¶ 3:19, pp. 3–5 to 3–6 [‘Where a client retains a law firm ... the client's relationship extends to all members of the firm or organization’]; see also Blackmon v.

Hale, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 558, 83 Cal.Rptr. 194, 463 P.2d 418 [‘Although the [law] firm's records indicate that [the partners] regarded plaintiff as a client of [one partner] only, there is no evidence whatever that [the partners] ever informed plaintiff that [the partner] was not representing plaintiff as a member of the firm’].)” (PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 384, 392.)

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED.

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

In the Matter of Irrevocable Special Needs Trust 21PR000283 For Jamie J. Cooper, Dated June 30, 2009

SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST – AMENDED PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF SECOND ACCOUNT, APPROVAL OF ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPROVAL OF TRUSTEES’ FEES; AND FOR SETTLEMENT THEREOF [Filed 4/9/26]

TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is GRANTED. The matter is set for a Third Accounting on August 22, 2028, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B. All accounting documents must be filed at least 30 days prior to the hearing. The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.

GUARDIANSHIP CALENDAR – Commissioner Douglas Skelton, Dept. 6 (Criminal Courts Bldg. – 1111 Third St.) at 2:00 p.m.

Guardianship of Arianna Mae Perez et al 26PR000117

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN OF MINOR

APPEARANCE REQUIRED. Petitioner did not provide sufficient notice of the hearing or service of the Petition on the Minors’ Mother or Maternal Grandfather. The evidence of service in the Court file demonstrates service on James Giller on August 8, 2026, which is 13 days’ notice. (See 8/13/26 POS.) However, 15 days’ notice is required. (See Prob. Code, § 1511.) The evidence of service in the Court file demonstrates service on Mother via text message. (See 6/5/26 POS.) However, personal service on the Minors’ parents is required. (Ibid.) “The court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a [petition] that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question.” (Diaz v. Prof. Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204- 05.)

That said, the court investigator report reflects that both Mother and Maternal Grandfather were interviewed regarding the underlying Petition and that Maternal Grandfather reported he does not support the Petition. Moreover, the Court notes that Mother appeared at the June 10, 2026 Hearing for Temporary Guardianship, at which this August 21, 2026 Hearing on Permanent Guardianship was confirmed. Thus, the Court believes there is a likelihood that Mother and Maternal Grandfather will appear at the hearing as noticed, prepared to proceed on the Petition hearing.

Thus, in the interests of judicial efficiency, Petitioner’s appearance is required. If Mother and Maternal Grandfather do not appear at the hearing, however, the Court will continue the present Petition to allow Petitioner to provide sufficient notice to Mother and Maternal Grandfather.

Guardianship of Joseph Matthew Reggiardo, Jr. 26PR000140

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN OF MINOR’S ESTATE

APPEARANCE REQUIRED

25