Collao – Conservatorship

The court notes that Petitioner served an identical document demand on the "Estate of Elaine C. Thomas," and there is an identical motion to compel responses from the Estate that is set for hearing on 9/9/26 at 1:30 PM in Department CM07. The Estate is not a separate entity. The proper procedure is to serve discovery on the Administrator for the Estate. Thus, the court ADVANCES the hearing on the Motion to Compel responses from the Estate (ROA 130) to today's date and DENIES it.

The court further notes that Petitioner has filed two Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted. (ROAs 112 and 118.) However, since the motions were filed as a "Notice," they were not set for hearing. To obtain a hearing date, Petitioner must resubmit the motions and pay the filing fees.

Petitioner is ordered to serve a notice of this ruling on the Administrator.

[Motion Type]

01469211 Collao – TENTATIVE RULING Conservatorship Case: Collao – Conservatorship 01469211

Calendar No: 4 Date: 09/02/26

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL (ROA 91)

Attorney Frank O. Fox seeks to be relieved as counsel for Conservator Janet D. Allen.

This motion initially came before the court on 7/1/26, at which time the motion was continued for compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 and Orange County Local Rule 601.21.

Counsel has since fully complied.

The motion to withdraw as counsel of record is GRANTED.

Withdrawal is effective upon proof of service of the signed Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (MC-053).

01532942 Fullerton - Other TENTATIVE RULING

Case: Fullerton - Other Probate 01532942

Calendar No: 6 Date: 09/02/26

MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS (ROA 27)

Petitioner Felicia Hall (“Petitioner”) moves to quash the notice of pendency of action recorded by Respondent Noah Fullerton ("Respondent") against the real property located in Hemet, California. (ROA 27.)

A motion to expunge a lis pendens must be granted where a lis pendens is improper, either because: (1) the pleading on which the lis pendens is based does not contain a real property claim; or (2) the claimant cannot establish the probable validity of its real property claim(s) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 405.31, 405.32; Prob. Code, § 1000.)

Unlike most other motions, when a motion to expunge is brought, the burden is on the party opposing the motion to both show the existence of a real property claim and the probable validity of that claim. (Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647; Code Civ. Proc., § 405.30.)

Here, Respondent has not opposed this motion and, therefore, has not met his burden to show the existence of a real property claim or the probability of prevailing. Furthermore, Respondent has not asserted any claims whatsoever, as he has only filed a responsive pleading. (ROA 8.)

The motion to expunge lis pendens is GRANTED.