In the Matter of: MIA "ARLO" REYES

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25PR003433: GUARDIANSHIP OF: MIA "ARLO" REYES 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Amended Motion to Vacate Order in Department 126

Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf. A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING Movants and Objectors Marceta and David Culver’s unopposed amended motion to vacate is GRANTED as follows.

Upon receipt of the amended notice of motion and motion, the matter was set for hearing on May 20, 2026 and reset to June 3, 2026. “This motion is based on the previously filed Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the declarations of Marceta Culver and David Culver and exhibits attached thereto.” (Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate Void Order Appointing Temporary Guardian and To Dismiss Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person, 2:26- 27.)

Movants indicate the ex parte temporary guardianship granted on October 17, 2026, and extended on December 19, 2025, is void for lack of jurisdiction. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities [“MPA”] 4:7.) Alternatively, Movants argue the ex parte did not demonstrate the required factual showing and did not have a required express finding of detriment.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 473 empowers a court to allow amendment of pleadings, relief from a “judgement dismissal, order, or other proceeding,” and “may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”

The relief permitted by this section is “an extraordinary and conditional remedy allowed to those who, through no fault of their own, have been deprived of their day in court.” (Estate of Glassgold (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 859, 865.)

The Court has the power to set aside entry of a default which is valid on its face yet void as a matter of law due to improper service. (See Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1199; Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544; American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 387.) “A judgment is void if the trial court lacks jurisdiction

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25PR003433: GUARDIANSHIP OF: MIA "ARLO" REYES 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Amended Motion to Vacate Order in Department 126

in a fundamental sense, as where it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction…or granted relief the court had no power to grant.” (W. Bradley Electric, Inc. v. Mitchell Engineering (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1, 13 [citations omitted].) Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

First, the Court noted in its 12/19/2025 minute order regarding the general guardianship hearing, that “Christina Reyes and Marceta Culver both made general appearances at the hearing and orally objected to the pending guardianship, waiving any defects as to notice.” Thus, the Court declines to grant the motion to vacate on this basis.

Next, Movants argue that the order was improper given a prior court order that “any request to modify custody be pursued in the family court.” (MPA, 15:3, Exhibit B.) In reviewing Movants’ Exhibit B, “[a]ll requests for modification or termination of these orders must be brought in the family court case in which these orders are filed.” (MPA, Exhibit B, p. 3.) Exhibit A also reflects a juvenile court case number in addition to the family court case number. The family court retains jurisdiction to modify or terminate its custody orders. (In re Marriage of Kreiss (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1084, citing In re Marriage of Armato (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1045-1046.) Thus, in light of the family court’s order and its retained jurisdiction over any modification or termination of the custody orders, the motion to vacate must be granted.

Further, the Court notes that Petitioners and Guardians Amy and Robert Flinn did not oppose the motion. The Court construes Petitioners’ failure to oppose the motion as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].)

The underlying orders, filed October 17, 2025, and December 19, 2025, granting guardianship to Amy Flinn are vacated. On the Court’s own motion, the order appointing temporary guardian filed January 16, 2026, is vacated as void. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(d).)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)