Conservatorship of Rodrigo Madrigal Ruvalcaba

Appearances required. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Lewis Alonza Hamilton Tentative Ruling: Estate of Lewis Alonza Hamilton Case Number 22PR00369 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following is noted for the Court at the hearing: Apportionment of Fees. According to Declaration on file with the Court, the statutory fee will be apportioned by the Public Guardian and Mr. Black 50/50. It is recommended the Court approve this agreement and make the order. Guardianship of Dalaney Hamilton. According to the initial pleading filed in this case, Dalaney Hamilton is a minor, aged 12-13, and is represented by her mother as guardian ad litem, who was either divorced or never married to the decedent. Dalaney Hamilton is entitled to 33 and 1/3 percent of the estate, which includes a sizable value in real property. This requires a guardianship over the estate be established. (CRC, Rule 7.950, Prob. Code, §§3600-3613.) No petition for guardianship over the estate is on file. There is a petition to be appointed Guardian ad litem on file as of April 9, 2026, but that petition is not what the Court required. The Court should not approve Final Distribution until the Guardianship over the estate is established. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Bank of America NA vs David Joseph Snyder Tentative Ruling: Bank of America NA vs David Joseph Snyder Case Number 23CV04526 Case Type Limited Rule 3.740 Collections (09) - under 10,000 Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/06/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Tentative Ruling /media/2112 Tentative Ruling: Joseph Gendron et al vs Susan A Webster et al Tentative Ruling: Joseph Gendron et al vs Susan A Webster et al Case Number 24CV02415 Case Type Unlimited Auto (22) Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion for Leave Tentative Ruling /media/2098 Tentative Ruling: Cavalry SPV I LLC vs Gerardo Ordaz Tentative Ruling: Cavalry SPV I LLC vs Gerardo Ordaz Case Number 24CV02989 Case Type Limited Rule 3.740 Collections (09) Reduced Fee - under 10K Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/08/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Set Aside Dismissal Tentative Ruling /media/2085 Tentative Ruling: Araceli Gonzalez Vasquez et al vs Veronica Martinez Nunez Tentative Ruling: Araceli Gonzalez Vasquez et al vs Veronica Martinez Nunez Case Number 24CV03365 Case Type Unlimited Auto (22) Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Review Tentative Ruling /media/2102 Tentative Ruling: Aaron Hunt et al vs Home Depot USA Inc Tentative Ruling: Aaron Hunt et al vs Home Depot USA Inc Case Number 24CV03854 Case Type Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD (23) Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/06/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Minor's Compromise (2) Tentative Ruling /media/2110 Tentative Ruling: Carol Ann Kelley-Elwell vs General Motors LLC Tentative Ruling: Carol Ann Kelley-Elwell vs General Motors LLC Case Number 24CV07047 Case Type Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Hearing Re Oral Argument as to Tentative Tentative Ruling /media/2095 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Philip Billbe Tentative Ruling: Estate of Philip Billbe Case Number 24PR00010 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Report and Confirmation of Sale of Real Property Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Efren Gonzales Tentative Ruling: Estate of Efren Gonzales Case Number 24PR00286 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. After review of the Supplemental Declaration filed on March 24, 2026, the following is noted for the Court at the hearing: Extraordinary Fees are still excessive. Petitioner's attorney requested extraordinary fees, stating only two activities as extraordinary work: 1) Preparation of an Unlawful Detainer action, and 2) extensive repair of estate real property in preparation for sale. While the first constitutes extraordinary work, the second does not, and the requested fees connected to that activity should be denied because attorney for petitioner did not submit any support for those fees that is required by the rules of court, and prior precedent. Payment of extraordinary fees is not guaranteed, and the Court has wide discretion to decide whether to allow extra compensation, even when services of an extraordinary nature are rendered. (CRC, Rule 7.703(a). See also In re Fulcher's Estate (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 710, 718 ["The general rule is that the probate court has a large discretion in the allowance of fees for extraordinary services rendered on behalf of the estate.") "[T]he burden of proving the necessity for the services is on the representative claiming extraordinary fees for himself and his attorney." (Ibid.) When extraordinary compensation is requested for the personal representative or attorney in Prayer, allegations must contain enough facts for the Court to exercise discretion pursuant to Probate Code section 10811 and CRC, Rule 7.703. A request for extraordinary compensation must include a statement of facts on which the request is based. Generally, the statement of facts must include the following information (Cal Rules of Ct 7.702): Nature and difficulty of the tasks performed; Results achieved; Benefit of the services to the estate; Specification of the amount requested for each category of services performed; Hourly rate of each person performing services and the hours spent by each; Detailed description of services performed demonstrating productivity of hours spent; and Estimated ordinary compensation, if the petition is not part of a final account or report. That was not submitted in this case. Further, the following information should be added: Expertise, experience, and professional standing in the community of the person performing services (including not only the attorney requesting extraordinary compensation, but also the qualifications of any paralegals supervised by the attorney who performed extraordinary services); and Size of the estate and length of administration. As stated in the probate notes previously, the sale of real property is an ordinary and usual occurrence in the administration of a decedent's estate, thus does not automatically warrant extraordinary fees, even when work is performed to remedy waste. Unless circumstances during the sale of real property require the estate to incur "legal services" not normally needed during the sale and escrow process, the high value of real estate in this state generates a statutory fee award that is usually sufficient to compensate the personal representative and the attorney. This is especially true when a real estate agent is used to effectuate the sale. The standard courts use is " legal services in connection with the sale of property held in the estate." (CRC, Rule 7.703(c)(1).) There were no legal services required in this case to remedy the waste that was caused to the real property, besides the preparation of an unlawful detainer action, which is most certainly extraordinary in nature. The Court may consider that the statutory fee calculated on an estate where the decedent's personal residence that was sold for $500,000 is reasonable compensation, because no "legal services" were required to effectuate the sale of the property, other than brief contract review and associated tasks, and the policy behind statutory fee awards includes strong consideration of the complication of larger estates than that of smaller estates. (In re Buchman's Estate (1955) 138 Cal.App.2d 228, 235. See also Estate of Getty (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 455 [discussing in dicta that massive statutory compensation can be sufficient to cover unexpected intricacies in estate administration]; and Estate of Hilton (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 890, 912-16 [citing In re Walker's Estate (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 792, 795] for the proposition that probate courts can disallow all extraordinary fees claims if they find statutory compensation sufficient, keeping in mind the legislature's policy of subsidizing fees in more complicated estates with those easily earned in less complicated estate ["The Legislature merely determined, in substance, that any undercompensation involved in handling small estates would be equitably adjusted in the long run by overcompensation in handling larger estates."].) As a result of the above authority, and because the efforts spent on remedying waste to the estate was not legal in nature, but clerical at best, it is recommended the Court deny the fees associated with the repairs of the home to ready it for sale, and only approve the fees expended in the preparation of the unlawful detainer. Petitioner should submit supplement outlining what the fees are that were expressly connected to the unlawful detainer action so the court does not have to do so. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Elaine Twitchell Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Elaine Twitchell Case Number 24PR00374 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings 1. Review hearing: First Accounting and Report 2. Petition for Attorney's Fees (Faulks Matta) 3. Petition for Attorney's Fees (Comstock) 4. Motion for Approval of Credit Card Use 5. Motion to Waive Bond Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. After review of the submissions filed on February 24, March 4, 6, 10, and 11, and April 3 of 2026, the following is noted for the Court at the hearing: Discrepancy no. 1 - Required Format of Accounting. The accounting, as originally submitted on December 22, 2025, did not constitute a pleading, because it did not contain necessary factual allegations required to (1) serve as a formal basis for a judgment; (2) frame and limit the issues, separating issues of fact from questions of law; (3) make available the defense of res judicata (claim preclusion) in a later action; and (4) give notice of claims, and possible defenses, and cross-demands. (4 Witkin, Cal.Proc.6th (2025), Pleadings § 1 Origin, Nature, and Extent [citing Committee on Children's Television v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 C.3d 197, 211.) The accounting also was not verified, which is required for all submissions to the Probate Court. (Prob. Code, § 1021.) The December 22, 2025, submission also did not provide the factual allegations required by Probate Code sections 1060-1064 (CRC, Rule 7.575), did not contain all the supporting schedules required by those code sections, and did not contain any factual allegations or the required information in Article 3, Chapter 7, Part 4 of Division 4 of the Probate Code (§2620, et seq.). As of March 9, 2026, this Discrepancy has been mostly addressed. Conservator filed an "Amended First Account and Report of Conservator of the Estate" on March 6, 2026, that does address the general deficiencies in pleading that were noted above. Although the summary of account and supporting schedules were not attached to the amended accounting, they were attached inexplicably to a document entitled "Conservator's Amended notice of Filing First Account and Report of Conservator." Recommendation re: Discrepancy no. 1 The Court should find this issue resolved, but issue a warning that future compliance requires the Accounting be attached to the petition for approval as a single document. Discrepancy no. 2 and 3 - Missing Schedules. The Amended Accounting was missing schedules that are required by Probate Code section 1061 and 1062. Specifically, the Amended Accounting did not have schedules supporting the estate on hand at the beginning and end of account, which is required by Probate Code section 1062. Recommendation re: Discrepancy no. 2 and 3 The Court should find this issue resolved. The schedules were provided via supplement. Discrepancy no. 4 - Charges do not equal credits (Prob. Code, §1061(c).) Petitioner admits the charges and credits do not match by $2.89. The court should surcharge the conservator this amount. Recommendation re: Discrepancy no. 4 The Court ordered surcharge of $2.89 at the last hearing on April 1. That amount must be added to the conservatee's account and reflected in the next accounting. Discrepancy no. 5 - Conservator may not use credit cards without disclosing all of the billing statements to the court. Use of credit cards without court approval violates CRC, Rule 7.1059, subdivisions (b)(1-3, and 8). Credit card charges should be itemized on the Disbursements schedule and organized by category. Recommendation re: Discrepancy no. 5 The Court resolved this discrepancy on April 1st, ordering no credit cards are to be used after March of 2026. Discrepancy no. 6 - Title on conservatorship account does not reflect the name of the conservatorship estate. (CRC 7.1059 (b)(7).) Recommendation re: Discrepancy no. 6 The Court should find this issue tentatively resolved based on the Declaration filed on April 3rd. However, that declaration was not accompanied by an account statement reflecting the change, so future account statements must reflect what was attested to in the Declaration under the penalty of perjury, thus title on the account must reflect the name of the conservatorship estate in compliance with CRC, Rule 7.1059, or perjury proceedings will be recommended. Discrepancy no. 7 - Sufficiency of the bond must be addressed. (See Local Rule 1742 (a) & (b).) Conservators inexplicably asked for waivers of bond. Bond in a conservatorship proceeding cannot usually be waived. (Prob. Code, §2321.) The only exception is if the Court can make "a determination that the conservatee will not suffer harm as a result of the waiver or reduction of the bond." (Id. at subd. (b).) Petitioners offer no facts or analysis as to how this Court can make that determination, nor why it should. The amount of the bond given by an admitted surety insurer must be the sum of the following (Prob C §2320(c); Cal Rules of Ct 7.204(c)): The value of the personal property of the estate; The probable annual gross income of all estate property; The sum of the probable annual gross payments from specified county, state, and federal public welfare programs; A reasonable amount for the cost of recovery to collect on the bond, including attorney fees and costs (see §9.4A for rules for determining this amount); and The value of any real property for which the conservator holds an independent power of sale (Prob C §2591(c)). Recommendation re: Discrepancy no. 7 The Court should find this issue unresolved. On April 15th the Court ordered conservators to obtain bond, but no bond is on file. Discrepancy no. 8 - Attorney's fees were paid without court approval. Although it appears some steps have been taken to give the fees back, this does not explain why they were paid in the first place. Fees can only be paid from the conservatorship estate after court authorization. (Prob. Code, §§ 2640-2643.) (See Prob. Code, §§2430(a)(4), 2640(a), 2641(a), 2642(a), 2647.) If a conservator pays or receives compensation, or if an attorney for the conservator receives any payment from the conservatorship estate without advance court approval, the court may surcharge and remove the conservator and impose any other sanction authorized by law. (CRC, Rule 7.755(a).) Recommendation re: Discrepancy no. 8 It is recommended the Court sanction attorneys for conservator at least $500 for prepayment of fees without a court order. There was no reasonable rationale for why the fees were paid in the first place, and the payment appears to be due to a lack of experience and expertise in the area of conservatorship law. Attorney's fees (Comstock) There are three primary issues with the Petition for Attorney's Fees filed by Marie Comstock. The first issue is the rate being charged for paralegal work. The $250/hr fee for paralegal work is far from commensurate of the fee this Court regularly approves for paralegals with extensive experience in conservatorship law (which is apparent this paralegal does not have), and was not supported by a declaration of compliance with CRC. Rules 7.754 and 7.703. Not only do the extensive errors in the work product submitted to this court in this case speak to the lack of experience in conservatorship law, but it also speaks volumes that no evidence was submitted in support of the paralegal's expertise in the area of conservatorship law, which is required to justify any hourly rate, let alone rates that are considered by this Court to be the top rates in this legal community if the Court approved them. Proof of the reasonable hourly rate must be based upon more than simply the affidavit of the attorney requesting the fees; a supporting affidavit from independent counsel practicing in the forum community should also be provided. (Blum v. Stenson (1984) 465 U.S. 886, 895, fn. 11; Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.) The moving party must also present evidence of the qualification and experience of the attorneys who performed the work upon which the request is based. (Ajaxo, Inc. v. E-Trade Group (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 21, 65.) Since this was not done, and the errors in the submissions from the very beginning of this case have caused numerous hearings and supplements that have wasted precious court resources to review, the Court should find the hourly rate unreasonable under the circumstances, and allow $150 for the paralegal and $400 for the attorney. The second issue is a request to pay fees for unbilled work. This is a non-starter under well settled precedent, and under the California Rules of Court. An appropriate fee petition will contain a summary of the total hours, the proposed hourly rate, and the amount of compensation sought. The petition must be accompanied by a detailed description of each service, the date, duration, rate, and total charges. Cal Rules of Ct 7.702, 7.751(b). If compensation is requested for legal services performed by a paralegal, the petition must state that such services were performed under the direction and supervision of an attorney and must set forth the hours spent and services performed by the paralegal. Prob C §2640(c). Thus, it is recommended the Court deny the request to approve $1,167.50 of unbilled fees. The third, and final issue is overbilling for work that appears to be clerical in nature. In several descriptions of the work performed, the nature of the work appears to be clerical or administrative in nature. There are several examples of phone calls and emails to the client for what can only be described as status updates on the case, or worked performed in the pursuit of obtaining a bond. Though most of this work was performed by the paralegal, even at the $150/hr rate recommended for paralegal work, the entries amount to a significant overcharge. It is recommended the Court find that 5.2 hours of work being billed was clerical in nature, and allow only $60/hr for that work. Thus, it is recommended the Court approve the fee request, but only with a reduction of $3,603.19, for a total fee of $4,952. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Norma Jean Hansen Tentative Ruling: Estate of Norma Jean Hansen Case Number 24PR00389 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: No appearances required. Petition is recommended for approval. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Luis Alfonso Magana Tentative Ruling: Estate of Luis Alfonso Magana Case Number 24PR00499 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following issues are noted for the Court at the hearing: Amended petition re: distribution. The Probate Notes posted for the original hearing date of December 17, 2025, stated that an amended petition would need to be filed, because the proposed distribution in the petition filed on October 29, 2025, would violate Local Rule1735, as well as likely result in issues related to Family Code section 3900. The amended petition was filed on April 10, 2026, thus does not have sufficient time for notice so that the petition can be heard on the current hearing date. (CRC, Rule 7.53.) It is recommended that the matter be continued to a date to be set by the Court at the hearing, unless the party appears and requests a different date, or submits a request for a different continuance date prior to the hearing. (Local Rule 1721(c)(2)(A-B).) If the matter is continued, documents must be submitted at least 10 days prior to the new hearing date to be considered. Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the "Filing Description" field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field - BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ). Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Levi Isaac Lopez Tentative Ruling: Estate of Levi Isaac Lopez Case Number 24PR00714 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Compel Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following is noted for the Court at the hearing: A fiduciary [1] may "apply to the court for an order directing compliance" with the RUFADAA if the fiduciary shows compliance with sections 876 through 879.3 and the custodian [2] of the records sought by the fiduciary does not provide the requested information within 60 days. (Prob. Code, §881(a).) In a decedent's estate, compliance with Probate Code section 876 triggers the duty of the custodian to give access to the records. In this case, the Decedent's records are alleged to belong to an email address at levi.lopez1987@gmail.com. Petitioner alleges the following requirements were followed: ? A written request for disclosure in physical or electronic form. ? A certified copy of the death certificate of the user. ? A certified copy of the letter of appointment of the representative, a small-estate affidavit under Section 13101, or court order. However, Petitioner also admits that the following requirement outlined in section 876 was not met: ? Unless the user provided direction using an online tool, a copy of the user's will, trust, power of attorney, or other record evidencing the user's consent to disclosure of the content of electronic communications. Nor could it be, because Decedent died intestate, and thus did not leave any of the above estate plans for Google, Inc. to rely upon in determining the Decedent's intent to grant access to their email account. Therefore, it appears that the that unless the user either designated disclosure via an online tool, or executed an estate plan that designates disclosure, the custodian of the records has a right to refuse disclosure, and it is arguable this court has no authority to order disclosure. Even if the Court had authority to order disclosure under the RUFADAA, the extent of the disclosure sought by the Personal Representative in this case is beyond the scope of what the Court could order, due to the limiting language in Probate Code sections 879 et seq. At each section, the disclosure is limited to what amounts to metadata by the language of "other than the content of electronic communications" in each section. Thus, the contents of emails and other files being sought by the Personal Representative in this case are not disclosable. [1] "Fiduciary" means an original, additional, or successor personal representative, conservator, agent, or trustee. (Prob. Code, §871(l).) [2] "Custodian" means a person who carries, maintains, processes, receives, or stores a digital asset of a user. (Prob. Code, 871(f).) Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Ancieto Sierra Hernandez vs Railway Jonata LLC Tentative Ruling: Ancieto Sierra Hernandez vs Railway Jonata LLC Case Number 25CV01042 Case Type Unlimited Other Employment (15) Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion for Preliminary Approval Tentative Ruling The motion was filed on April 17, 2026 for hearing on April 29, 2026. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 (b) requires that "Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing." This motion was not timely filed and even if it were timely served, the court is unable to accommodate it. Adherence to established filing deadlines is necessary to the fair and efficient administration of the court's docket. Accordingly, the motion is continued to June 24, 2026. Plaintiff to give notice. No appearances are required on April 29, 2026. Tentative Ruling: Capital One NA vs Elizabeth B Silva Tentative Ruling: Capital One NA vs Elizabeth B Silva Case Number 25CV01750 Case Type Limited Rule 3.740 Collections (09) - under 10,000 Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/01/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Tentative Ruling /media/2080 Tentative Ruling: JPMorgan Chase Bank NA vs Lindsay M Alvarado Tentative Ruling: JPMorgan Chase Bank NA vs Lindsay M Alvarado Case Number 25CV02251 Case Type Limited Rule 3.740 Collections (09) - under 10,000 Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/08/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Vacate Tentative Ruling /media/2084 Tentative Ruling: Maria Quevedo vs City of Santa Maria et al Tentative Ruling: Maria Quevedo vs City of Santa Maria et al Case Number 25CV02608 Case Type Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD (23) Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Demurrer Tentative Ruling /media/2096 Tentative Ruling: Two Jinn Inc vs Katia Georgina Marquez Tentative Ruling: Two Jinn Inc vs Katia Georgina Marquez Case Number 25CV02622 Case Type Limited Rule 3.740 Collections (09) - under 10,000 Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Tentative Ruling /media/2101 Tentative Ruling: Two Jinn Inc vs Bernardino Fernandez et al Tentative Ruling: Two Jinn Inc vs Bernardino Fernandez et al Case Number 25CV02990 Case Type Limited Rule 3.740 Collections (09) - under 10,000 Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/06/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Deem Facts Admitted Tentative Ruling /media/2111 Tentative Ruling: Anthony Ontiveros vs City of Santa Maria Tentative Ruling: Anthony Ontiveros vs City of Santa Maria Case Number 25CV05376 Case Type Unlimited Eminent Domain/Inv Cond (14) Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Disqualify Counsel Tentative Ruling /media/2097 Tentative Ruling: Vanessa Munoz vs Doreen Eyman Tentative Ruling: Vanessa Munoz vs Doreen Eyman Case Number 25CV07844 Case Type Unlimited Auto (22) Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/01/2026 - 10:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Correct Complaint Filing Date Tentative Ruling /media/2082 Tentative Ruling: Matter of Renata Guendulay Tentative Ruling: Matter of Renata Guendulay Case Number 25PR00335 Case Type Minor/Disabled Person's Compromise Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required, including the minor. (CRC 7.952.) Judicial Council form MC-356 must be completed and signed by a representative of the financial institution, attesting to the fact that the full settlement amount listed in the Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account (MC-355) was deposited into a blocked account. The Court has not received your Acknowledgment of Receipt of Order and Funds For Deposit In Blocked Account (MC-356), which proves to this Court that the funds belonging to the minor are protected in account that is blocked from withdrawal. If the MC-356 is not on file before the hearing, the Court may issue an OSC re: Sanctions. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Matter of Miguel Guendulay Tentative Ruling: Matter of Miguel Guendulay Case Number 25PR00336 Case Type Minor/Disabled Person's Compromise Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required, including the minor. (CRC 7.952.) Judicial Council form MC-356 must be completed and signed by a representative of the financial institution, attesting to the fact that the full settlement amount listed in the Order for the Deposit of Money Into Blocked Account (MC-355) was deposited into a blocked account. The Court has not received your Acknowledgment of Receipt of Order and Funds For Deposit In Blocked Account (MC-356), which proves to this Court that the funds belonging to the minor are protected in account that is blocked from withdrawal. If the MC-356 is not on file before the hearing, the Court may issue an OSC re: Sanctions. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Tom Nielsen Brummett Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Tom Nielsen Brummett Case Number 25PR00359 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/06/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Biennial Review Tentative Ruling No appearances are required. The court investigator's report has been received and recommends that the conservatorship continue. The next review hearing will be held on May 3, 2028. The Court will give notice of this hearing to all parties. Tentative Ruling: Estate of Lyn Bernardine Bean Tentative Ruling: Estate of Lyn Bernardine Bean Case Number 25PR00422 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/08/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: On February 25, 2026, Kathryn Dohn filed a Petition for Final Distribution on Account, and for Payment of Compensation for Ordinary Services. On March 25, 2026, Sarah Bumanglag filed an Objection to the Petition of Kaythryn Dohn, placing this matter at issue and requiring evidentiary hearing to resolve. (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.) Parties must come prepared to discuss discovery needs and trial dates. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Adrian Steven Corletto Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Adrian Steven Corletto Case Number 25PR00458 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Conservatorship Compliance Hearing Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following documents have not been filed with the court pursuant to the Court's order to file the documents, issued on October 29, 2025: Notice of Conservatee's Rights (Form GC-341) (Prob. Code, § 1830(c).) Form GC-341 must be timely mailed to the conservatee and to the conservatee's relatives within the second degree (grandparents, parents, siblings, adult children, and adult grandchildren). No Proof of Service is on file. Confidential Conservatorship Care Plan (Forms GC-355 and GC-356) (Prob. Code, § 2351.2, 2352.5.) Conservators must file Forms GC-355 and GC-356 showing specific details about where the conservatee lives or has been temporarily placed, the level of care necessary to provide for the conservatee's needs, the medical condition and treatment of the conservatee, as well as any plan to return the conservatee to their primary place of residence from a temporary care placement. PLEASE NOTE: Form GC-355 completely changed as of January 1, 2025 due to the passing of SB280, and GC-356 was newly created as a result of that law. The GC-355 form you submit must be the form revised on January 1, 2025. Please also be aware that Form GC-356 must be submitted in all cases, unless a first-degree relative is appointed a limited conservator and must include confidential medical information in response to paragraph 4 of GC-355 (at 4a or 4b) . No earlier iteration of form GC-355 is acceptable to fulfil this duty. No current Form GC-355 is on file. PLEASE NOTE: Failure to submit the required documents listed in the previous Conservator Compliance Order is a breach of fiduciary duty as a conservator, and can result in removal as conservator and surcharge. (Prob. Code, § 2650(c).) If you are removed from office, a successor conservator will be appointed and will be entitled to collect fees. The death of the conservatee does not relieve a conservator of the duty to cure the deficiencies from the previous hearings. Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Elizabeth Anne Garvin Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Elizabeth Anne Garvin Case Number 25PR00487 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Compliance Review Hearing Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following documents have not been filed with the court pursuant to the Court's order to file said documents on March 13, 2026: Determination of Conservatee's Appropriate Level of Care (Form GC-355) (Prob. Code, § 2352.5.) Conservators must file Form GC-355 showing where the conservatee lives/has been placed, and the level of care necessary to provide for the conservatee's needs. No Form GC-355 is on file. Inventory & Appraisal (Form GC-040) (Prob. Code, § 2610). The conservator must file an inventory and appraisal of the estate, made as of the date of the appointment of the guardian or conservator. Proof of Service - Notice of How to File Objection to I & A (Form GC-042) (Prob. Code, § 2610) A copy of the Inventory & Appraisal (Form GC-040), along with Notice of How to File Objection to I & A (Form GC-042), must be delivered to the conservatee's spouse or registered domestic partner, the conservatee's relatives in the first degree, and, if there are no such relatives, to the next closest relative, unless the court determines that the delivery will result in harm to the conservatee. Proof of Recording Letters of Conservatorship (Prob. Code, § 2313). A conservator of the estate shall record a certified copy of the letters with the county recorder's office in each county in which the conservatee owns an interest in real property, including a security interest. The conservator shall record the letters as soon as practicable after they are issued, but no later than 90 days after the conservator is appointed. PLEASE NOTE: Failure to submit the required documents listed in the previous Conservator Compliance Order is a breach of fiduciary duty as a conservator, and can result in removal as conservator and surcharge. (Prob. Code, § 2650(c).) If you are removed from office, a successor conservator will be appointed and will be entitled to collect fees. The death of the conservatee does not relieve a conservator of the duty to cure the deficiencies from the previous hearings. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Gene E Godspeed Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Gene E Godspeed Case Number 25PR00500 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Appoint Conservator of Person Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following defects must be corrected before the hearing: Proof of Timely Mailed Service on Regional Center. When the proposed conservatee is a person with developmental disabilities, at least 30 days before the day of the hearing on the petition, the petitioner shall mail a notice of hearing and a copy of the petition to the appropriate regional center (in this geographical area, the regional center is Tri-Counties). (Prob. C. § 1822(e).) Confidential Declaration on Medical Ability to Attend Hearing (GC-325) - As of January 1, 2025, the ability of the proposed conservatee to attend the hearing will be determined on evidence submitted on Judicial Counsel form GC-325. This form was adopted for mandatory use as of January 1, 2025. This form must be filed, or the proposed conservatee will be expected to attend the hearing. Regional Center Report. When the proposed conservatee is a person with developmental disabilities, a report from the appropriate regional center is required (in this geographical area, the regional center is Tri-Counties). (Prob. C. § 1827.5.) The proposed conservatee is expected to attend the hearing. (Prob. Code, § 1825.) (Prob. Code, § 1825(a)(2)[medical inability].) Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Leilani Prado Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Leilani Prado Case Number 25PR00553 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/08/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Appoint Conservator Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. On October 28, 2025, Teresa Saucedo filed a Petition for Limited Conservatorship over the person of Leilani Prado in case no 25PR00553. That Petition was amended and filed on October 31, 2025. The Amended Petition received objection by Alberto Perez Licerio on January 6, 2026, placing the Amended Petition at issue, which requires evidentiary hearing to resolve. (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.) On February 17, 2026, Alberto Perez Licerio filed a Petition for Appointment of General Conservator over person and estate. This petition was filed, without explanation, in a different case (no. 26PR00078), was accompanied by a Petition for Temporary Conservatorship, and was not accompanied by a Notice of Related Case. This petition received objection by Teresa Saucedo on February 25, 2026, placing the petition at issue, which requires evidentiary hearing to resolve. While the filing of Mr. Licerio's petition in a separate case could be considered a mistake, the fact that it was accompanied by a Petition for Temporary Conservatorship and there was no Notice of Related Case filed in either case number, raises a presumption of gamesmanship that this court should not tolerate, and warrants sanctions. Parties must come prepared to discuss any discovery needs and come prepared to set dates for trial. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Matter of Miguel Grijalva Tentative Ruling: Matter of Miguel Grijalva Case Number 25PR00631 Case Type Minor/Disabled Person's Compromise Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/29/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Minor's Compromise Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Personal (in-person) appearances required, including the minor. (CRC 7.952.) It is recommended the Court grant the petition, but deny the request for a structured settlement. The petition to approve the claim of a minor prays for authority to use the balance of the proceeds of the settlement to invest in a structured settlement annuity with payments to the minor to commence when the minor becomes an adult. While the petition is marked at item 19b(3) as a request that the balance "be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, ..." what in fact is described in attachment 19b(3) is not a single-premium deferred annuity, but rather a structured settlement annuity. While a structured settlement annuity may be the preferred option when the remaining balance is a significant amount, and where sufficient time remains before the minor reaches the age of majority so that the annuity is a prudent investment (see, e.g., Urbatsch & Hall, Settling a Minor's Lawsuit: A Procedural and Practical Primer (July, 2012), retrieved March 22, 2023 from https://www.plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/settling-a-minor-s-lawsuit-a-procedural-and-practical-prime r), there are significant concerns with such a disposition of the balance in the best of cases. The funds under consideration belong to the minor. They do not belong to the parent, the guardian ad litem, or the court. While the minor may currently lack legal capacity to control the property, it still belongs to the minor. "Juveniles are entitled 'to acquire and hold property, real and personal' (Estate of Yano (1922) 188 Cal. 645, 649); and 'a minor child's property is his own . . . not that of his parents.' (Emery v. Emery (1955) 45 Cal.2d 421, 432; see also Civ.Code, §202." (In re Scott K. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 395, 405.) The Civil Code §202 cited in Scott K. is now Family Code §7502 ("The parent, as such, has no control over the property of the child.") While the desire of a parent or guardian ad litem to maximize the return on investment (or to prevent an immature 18-year-old from squandering funds) is understandable, those considerations are subservient to the autonomy that the claimant/minor will have once the age of majority is reached. When viewed as a whole, the statutory scheme for managing property belonging to a minor is to protect the property during minority, and to give it to the owner upon attainment of majority. That legislative intent is made clear in Sections 3612 and 3613, where the legislature limited the court's jurisdiction to make orders controlling the property of a person over the age of 18 who is not disabled. Minor's Compromise petitions are both required and governed by §3600, et seq., of the Probate Code. Section 3602 governs the disposition of what remains after the Court orders the payment of expenses, costs, and fees (Prob. Code §3601.) As with all protective proceedings, the goal is the best interest of the person to be protected, but the protection of those best interests must be done within the structure provided by the Probate Code. In the case of money or property paid or delivered pursuant to compromise or judgment for minor or disabled person, the code provides several options. Each of those options makes the minor's property available to the minor upon the age of majority. Guardianship of the Estate: One alternative, of course, is the establishment of a guardianship of the estate of the minor. (Prob. Code §1500, et seq.) Where there is a guardianship of the estate, the court may order the property into the guardianship estate, or may order it to be managed in another manner described in §3602. Those other alternatives mirror §3611's alternatives. A guardianship of the estate automatically terminates by operation of law "when the ward attains majority." (Prob. Code §1600(a).) Blocked Accounts: If no guardianship of the estate is established, §3611 provides an exclusive list of available alternative options. Among those is an order to deposit the funds "in an insured account in a financial institution in this state...." (Prob. Code §3611(b).) Those funds belong to the minor, and are to be paid to the minor without further court order when the minor reaches majority. Single-Premium Deferred Annuities: Another alternative is for the court to authorize the purchase of "a single-premium deferred annuity." (Prob. Code §3611(b).) A "Single-Premium Deferred Annuity," in this context, is defined by statute. Probate Code §1446 provides: "'Single-premium deferred annuity' means an annuity offered by an admitted life insurer for the payment of a one-time lump-sum premium and for which the insurer neither assesses any initial charges or administrative fees against the premium paid nor exacts or assesses any penalty for withdrawal of any funds by the annuitant after a period of five years." While Section 1446 does not specify that the annuitant has access to the funds at the age of 18, the practical effect is not significantly different. It is seldom financially advantageous to purchase an annuity if the payout is fewer than five years away, making annuities generally a less desirable alternative for a minor over the age of 13. The result would be that the minor has full access to those funds at age 18. Furthermore, the annuity allowed under Section 3611(b) is far less restrictive than the typical structured settlement annuity (SSA). The SSA simply does not allow the annuitant access to the funds except as allowed by the structure imposed in the annuity contract. That's the situation that leads to television commercials showing people yelling "It's my money, and I want it NOW." The danger of a young adult selling a structured annuity for pennies on the dollar is substantial, because that young adult's parents or guardian ad litem decided years ago to restrict the annuitant's access to their own money. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 161 956 1423 Passcode: 137305 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Rodrigo Madrigal Ruvalcaba Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Rodrigo Madrigal Ruvalcaba Case Number 26PR00004 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/06/2026 - 09:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Conservatorship of the Person Tentative Ruling Appearances required. The following must be submitted: Proof of Service on Relatives of Proposed Conservatee. At least 15 days before the hearing on the petition for appointment of a conservator, notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given by timely mailing service of the notice and copy of the petition to the (1) spouse, if any, or registered domestic partner, if any, of the proposed conservatee, and (2) relatives named in the petition at their addresses stated in the petition. (Prob. Code, §1822.) Confidential Declaration on Medical Ability to Attend Hearing (GC-325) - As of January 1, 2025, the ability of the proposed conservatee to attend the hearing will be determined on evidence submitted on Judicial Counsel form GC-325. This form was adopted for mandatory use as of January 1, 2025. This form must be filed, or the proposed conservatee will be expected to attend the hearing. Capacity Declaration (GC-335) - No order adjudging that conservatee lacks capacity to give informed consent to medical treatment may be granted unless supported by a declaration executed by a licensed physician or licensed psychologist supporting the request. (Prob. Code, § 1890(c).) The proposed conservatee is expected to attend the hearing, unless a Confidential Declaration on Medical Ability to Attend Hearing (GC-325) is filed and shows an medical inability to attend.