PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME
TENTATIVE RULINGS
FOR: May 29, 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. A Zoom Join by Video https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1601453113?pwd=XpBIIa8kBiCpGb0ukQyabkmCrgDdWM.1 Effective immediately, Department A no longer permits remote Zoom appearance by telephone.
Dept. B Zoom Join by Video https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1618700612?pwd=3bjaxoPtjuWe7B7JQWBQ8muwSuMiXC.1 Effective immediately, Department B 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))
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
In The Matter of Corolyn Gail Musgrave 26CV000754
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME
TENTATIVE RULING: An Order to Show Cause for Change of Name (OSC) was entered in this matter on April 06, 2026. Petitioner is required to publish the OSC in the manner set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1277. However, there is no proof of publication
(POP) in the Court’s file. If one is filed before the hearing, the petition will be GRANTED without need for appearance.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
If no proof of publication is filed, the matter will be CONTINUED to June 17, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A to provide any publisher time to file the POP.
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Stacee Cootes v. Vincent Spohn et al 24CV000657
[1] DEFENDANTS VINCENT SPOHN AND LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT M. SPOHN, AND BRUCE KETRON’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AT DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,110
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. Within 30 calendar days of notice of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall appear for an in-person deposition to answer the questions specified in Defendants’ Separate Statement. The parties are directed to meet and confer on a mutually agreeable date, time, and location for the resumed deposition. Within 10 calendar days of notice of entry of this order, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are jointly and severally ordered to pay to Defendants, care of their attorney of record, sanctions in the amount of $4,110. Defendants shall provide notice of entry of order.
The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 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.
Defendants Vincent Spohn and Law Offices Of Vincent M. Spohn (collectively “Attorney Spohn”) and Bruce Ketron (collectively with Attorney Spohn, “Defendants”) move, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, 1 for an Order compelling Plaintiff Stacee Cootes (“Plaintiff”) to answer specific questions posed at her deposition, for which she was improperly instructed not to answer without substantial justification or merit. Defendants also move for an order granting monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,110 against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel, Eric B. Seuthe of Law Offices of Eric Bryan Seuthe & Associates.
1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.
2