Quigley – Trust

the new evidence offered on reply no later than 10-1-26. Villa is not authorized to submit any response.

Villa to give notice.

3 Franke – Trust; 30-2024-01435677 Motion to Correct Order

4 Quigley – Trust; 30-2025-01451444 CONTINUED TO 10/21/2026 AT 09:00 AM

5 Lakey – Trust; 30-2025-0154307 Motion to Dismiss

Lyndell Lakey’s Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively to Stay, Proceeding for Inconvenient Forum (ROA 18) is DENIED. The accompanying request for judicial notice (ROA 45) is GRANTED as to Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 6, & 8 and DENIED as to Exhibits 3, 4, & 7. The court takes judicial notice of the existence and legal effect of the judicially noticed documents but does not take judicial notice of the facts asserted within them. (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375 [“Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning”].)

This motion arises out of two separate proceedings filed in two states. This proceeding (the California Proceeding) arises out of The Carol A. Lakey Revocable Trust (2013 Trust). Petitioner Lynne L. Bobo (Lynne) initiated the California Proceeding in August 2025 by filing a petition (ROA 2) seeking three determinations: (1) that the 2013 Trust is valid; (2) that a particular special warranty deed is valid; and (3) that Lyndell Lakey, Lynne’s brother and the moving party on the instant motion, violated the 2013 Trust’s no contest provision by filing a proceeding in Circuit Court of the State of Missouri, County of Douglas (the Missouri Proceeding) in June 2025.

Lyndell’s petition in the Missouri Proceeding arises out of revocable trust agreement executed by Harold Lakey and Carol Lakey on November 14, 2008 (2008 Trust). He