DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
30-2025-01478615·orange·Probate·Trust
Hearing todayNo tentative ruling.

Tanaka – Trust

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

Hearing date
Sep 2, 2026
Department
CM08
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Ruling

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT CM08 Temporary Judge Catherine Evans

Date: 09/02/2026

Court Room Rules and Notices

If the tentative rulings below are for a past date, please try the following to force a refresh of this page:

For a Windows-based computer, press “Cntrl” + “Shift” + “R” at the same time.

For an Apple computer, press “Cmd” + “Shift” + “R” at the same time.

# Case Name Tentative 1 Tanaka – Trust; 30-2025-01478615 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

No tentative ruling.

2 Rivas – Probate; 30-2023-01348724 Motion to Appoint Receiver; Suspend Personal Representative

The hearing on Sarai Mejia Villa’s Motion for Appointment of Receiver, etc. (ROA 601) is CONTINUED to 10-14-26 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CM08 to allow the opposing party Esther Castaneda to file supplemental briefing.

Villa submitted new evidence in support of her reply brief. “‘[T]he inclusion of additional evidentiary matter with the reply should only be allowed in the exceptional case . . .’ and if permitted, the other party should be given the opportunity to respond.” (Jay v. Maffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537–1538.) Considering the history of this case and to preserve the resources of both the parties and the court by determining this issue on this motion, the court will continue the hearing and allow Castaneda an opportunity to provide supplemental briefing and evidence in response to the new evidence submitted on reply.

The hearing on this motion is CONTINUED to 10- 14-26 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CM08. Castaneda may, if she wishes, provide supplemental briefing and evidence responsive to

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