DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25PR000142·napa·Civil·Probate
Hearing todayCONTINUED

Conservatorship of Diego Bertolino

First account and report of conservator; Petition for allowance of fees; Review

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
B
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 29, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$59,007.10$58,213.10

Parties

OtherDiego Bertolino

Ruling

TENTATIVE RULINGS

FOR: September 01, 2026

If you do not see a tentative ruling for a scheduled matter, then attendance at the hearing is required.

Remote appearances via Zoom are optional. Please use Zoom at the links listed below.

If you have cases scheduled in both courtrooms at the same time, first log-in to the Zoom session for the department that has your quickest matter(s), and upon check-in, ask the clerk to email the clerk in the other department to advise that you will be late to the other Zoom session.

Dept. B Zoom Join by Video https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1618700612?pwd=3bjaxoPtjuWe7B7JQWBQ8muwSuMiXC.1 Effective immediately, Department A no longer permits remote Zoom appearance by telephone.

Court Reporting Services – The Court does not provide official court reporters in proceedings for which such services are not legally mandated. Parties are responsible for either making the appropriate request in advance or arranging for their own private court reporter. Go to http://napacountybar.org/court-reporting-services/ for information about local private court reporters. Attorneys or parties must confer with each other to avoid having more than one court reporter present for the same hearing.

“Recording Court proceedings (whether by Zoom’s AI Meeting Summary functionality or by any other means) is PROHIBITED without express permission from a judicial officer. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.150(c) & (d))

** All matters originally set in Dept. A will be heard in Dept. B **

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

Conservatorship of Diego Bertolino 25PR000142

[1] FIRST ACCOUNT AND REPORT OF CONSERVATOR; PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF FEES TO CONSEVATOR OF PERSON AND ESTATE AND ATTORNEY FOR CONSERVATOR and [2] REVIEW – 1ST YEAR

TENTATIVE RULING: Both matters are CONTINUED to September 29, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A to permit Conservator to address the following item.

The Summary of Account indicates Disbursements in the amount of $59,007.10, whereas Schedule C shows Disbursements in the amount of $58,213.10. This discrepancy is not addressed through the Petition.

Petitioner may address this discrepancy either through an Amended Petition, or a Declaration, as appropriate. Any such document shall be served and filed on or before September 21, 2026.

Estate of Richard Lane Wyant 26PR000002

PETITION FOR FINAL DISTRIBUTION ON WAIVER OF ACCOUNTING; FOR ALLOWANCE OF COMPENSATION FOR STATUTORY ATTORNEY FEES; AND FOR COSTS

TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is GRANTED, including fees as prayed.

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

Rianna Mebane et al v. Jimmy Loy Moon et al 24CV001153

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion is GRANTED.

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.

Thomas Pollock et al v. Angel Melendez Pimentel et al 25CV000964

DEFENDANT FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

2

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