Conservatorship of Angel Ceballos Lopez

Appearances required. Parties must come prepared to discuss: Discovery referee and CCP section 639 order. Status of meet and confer. Return date for court confirmation of discovery referee's recommendations. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Frank Leigh Stark Tentative Ruling: Estate of Frank Leigh Stark Case Number 22PR00136 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings 1. Petition to Determine Persons Entitled to Distribution 2. Motion to Compel 3. Motion to Compel Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. Petition to Determine Persons Entitled to Distribution The Petition filed by Ronda Stark on February 13, 2025, received written objection by Leigh Anne Carriere Bartz, on May 29, 2025. This places the matter at issue, 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.) Motions to Compel The motions filed by Ronda Stark on March 13, 2026, were opposed by Leigh Anne Carriere Bartz on April 22, 2026. The following is noted for the Court at the hearing on these motions: It is Hornbook law that unless a statute protects the name, image, and likeness of the individual after death, the right to privacy dies with the person whose privacy is at issue. (James v. Screen Gems, Inc. (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 650, 653; Lugosi v. Universal Pictures (1979) 25 Cal.3d 813, 820, 833 (dissenting Justices agreeing with majority that: "It is not disputed that the right of privacy is a personal one, which is not assignable and ceases with an individual's death."); Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677 (children of deceased actor Errol Flynn cannot sue author of biography of Flynn for defamation or invasion of privacy because the right of privacy cannot be asserted by anyone other than the person whose privacy has been invaded). Both the Restatement and Professor Prosser made this rule plain long ago: The right protected by the action for invasion of privacy is a personal right, peculiar to the individual whose privacy is invaded. The cause of action is not assignable, and it cannot be maintained by other persons such as members of the individual's family, unless their own privacy is invaded along with his. The only exception to this rule involves the appropriation to the defendant's own use of another's name or likeness. (Restatement Second, Torts § 652I (1977); Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed.) § 117.) Thus, it appears that most of the assertions by the opposition to the motions are based on a false assertion of privacy rights that no longer exist, neither for Frank nor Kathleen. While our State's law does recognizes the extreme sensitivity of death-scene and autopsy photographs of the deceased, often protecting these images from disclosure (Code Civ. Proc., § 129,subd.(a)), that is not at issue here. The requests at issue here are for Electronically Stored Information on the devices of two deceased persons for the stated purpose of proving that they were involved in a relationship that resulted in a legitimate marriage, or not. This is unprotected information, and all communications between these two persons is, therefore, discoverable. Any purposeful destruction or spoilation of that evidence is sanctionable, up to and including terminating sanctions. (CCP, §2023.030(d).) Parties must come prepared to discuss any meet and confer attempts since the filing of the motion, and be prepared to offer the names of three preferred discovery referees if the Court determines the dispute to be complex, warranting a judicial reference pursuant to CCP section 639. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Kathleen Gregory Carriere Stark Tentative Ruling: Estate of Kathleen Gregory Carriere Stark Case Number 22PR00363 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Case Management Conference Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Probate notes will be updated on a rolling basis, generally five days before the hearing. If no probate notes are posted two days prior to the hearing, appearance is required. (Local Rule 1721(b).) Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Tiburcio v. Velazquez Tentative Ruling: Tiburcio v. Velazquez Case Number 24CV00460 Case Type Minor/Disabled Person's Compromise Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/05/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Minor's Compromise Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: The following deficiencies with the petition must be rectified. Unauthorized Pseudonym. Code of Civil Procedure section 367 states: Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute. There does not appear to be any reason why the minor in this case is listed as a "Doe" in the pleadings. Petitioner must amend the petition to contain the full name of the minor and relationship to the Guardian ad litem, or provide authority to the Court for listing the minor under a pseudonym. Medical Records re: Recovery. Adequate documentation that the minor has fully recovered, or is expected to fully recover from the injuries. The attachments supporting the allegation at paragraph 9 of the petition do not support a finding that the minor will fully recover. Please note: It is insufficient to attach the initial medical records. The Court needs confirmation of a full recovery, thus current, recent records showing minor suffers no symptoms from the original injury are required Proof of Insolvency. Adequate evidence of sufficient investigation into the solvency of the settling defendant above the policy limits of the settling insurance company must be submitted. There are no facts alleged that defendant cannot meet a judgment past the policy limits, and evidence on file shows the injury may be more severe than the amount of the settlement will compensate for. Ahlborn Motion or Reduction in Medi-Cal lien. According to SCOTUS, DHCS violates federal law when it places a statutory lien on any amount of a settlement or judgment above an amount specifically designated as reimbursement for medical costs. (Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn (2006) 547 U.S. 268, 272.) Thus, according to California cases decided after Ahlborn, DHCS cannot seek full reimbursement for Medi-Cal payments made for medical care required to treat injuries caused by a third-party tortfeasor, unless the recipient of the medical care recovers the full value of their tort claim. (See e.g. Lopez v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1378; Lima v. Vouis (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 242, 260; Bolanos v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 744, 748.) Thus in a settlement, DHCS's recovery is limited to a percentage of the portion of the settlement apportioned for reimbursement of payments made for medical care, equivalent to the percent the settlement is to the value of the full claim amount: Expressed mathematically, the Ahlborn formula calculates the reimbursement due as the total settlement divided by the full value of the claim, which is then multiplied by the value of benefits provided. (Reimbursement Due = [Total Settlement ÷ Full Value of Claim] × Value of Benefits Provided.) (Aguilera v. Loma Linda University Medical Center (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 821, 828.) If such deficiencies are adequately addressed prior to the hearing, the court may sign the Order Approving Compromise and vacate the hearing date. Tentative Ruling: F M vs Los Olivos School District et al Tentative Ruling: F M vs Los Olivos School District et al Case Number 24CV04444 Case Type Unlimited Civil Rights (08) Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative Ruling /media/2103 Tentative Ruling: Carlos Alberto Alonso vs AT Still University Tentative Ruling: Carlos Alberto Alonso vs AT Still University Case Number 24CV07177 Case Type Unlimited Civil Rights (08) Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/05/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings 1. Motion for Attorney Fees, 2. Motion for Final Approval Tentative Ruling /media/2109 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Terrence Thomas Gallagher Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Terrence Thomas Gallagher Case Number 24PR00369 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Final Accounting and Report Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The petition is recommended for approval, absent objection. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Rosalia Rodriguez Gauna Tentative Ruling: Estate of Rosalia Rodriguez Gauna Case Number 24PR00429 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/12/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. The following is noted for the Court at the hearing: On March 3, 2026, Gilbert Gauna filed a Petition for Final Distribution. On April 3, 2026, Thomas R. Gauna filed an objection to the Gilbert Gauna's Petition for Final Distribution. This places the matter at issue, 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.) However, it appears from all the filings of the objector, Thomas R. Gauna, that the objections are based on issues the court has already ruled on against Thomas R. Gauna. As such, the objection operates as an inappropriate request for reconsideration, when such a request was already made multiple times in the past. Therefore, it is recommended the Court overrule the objections of Thomas R. Gauna, find that they are frivolous or solely intended to cause delay, and order Thomas R. Gauna to pay the extraordinary fees of Vince Martinez out of Thomas R. Gauna's share of the estate. Any other Respondents desirous to object to the Petition, must file a written objection before the hearing. The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Liliana Gonzalez Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Liliana Gonzalez Case Number 24PR00504 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/12/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings First Accounting and Report of Conservator Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Court records show that an Accounting is due (See Prob. Code, § 2620), but there is no accounting on file. The Court ordered the accounting on October 1, 2021. According to the order, the Accounting should have been filed for review by September 12, 2022, which is 15 days before the hearing. The Notice to File an Accounting was issued pursuant to Probate Code section 2620.2 on March 3, 2026, served on March 6, 2026, requiring the accounting be filed within 30 days of that notice. The accounting is still not on file. As a result of the failure to file the accounting, the court may remove the conservator (Prob. Code, §2620.2(b)(1)), cite the conservator for contempt of court (Prob. Code, §2620.2(b)(2)), suspend the powers of the conservator, appoint a temporary conservator to take hold of the assets, and recommend surcharge (Prob. Code, §2620.2(b)(3)), and/or appoint legal counsel for the conservatee and compensate counsel via surcharge to the conservator (Prob. Code, §2620.2(b)(4)). If the estate qualifies, the conservator may request an order dispensing with accountings pursuant to Probate Code section 2628. This may often be accomplished by submission of a declaration (Judicial Council Form MC-030) ex parte. As the Court's representative, the Court Investigator is required to visit the conservatee to make advisements and determine ongoing need in accordance with Probate Code section 1851. The Court Investigator must be served with a copy of the accounting. In Santa Maria, it should be sent to 312-C E. Cook Street, Santa Maria, CA 93454. In Santa Barbara, it should be sent to 118 E. Figueroa, Santa Barbara, CA 93101. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Briana Vargas Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Briana Vargas Case Number 24PR00639 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/05/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Review Investigator's Report Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: 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 April 18, 2028. The Court will give notice of this hearing to all parties. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Michael J Domingues Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Michael J Domingues Case Number 24PR00673 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/05/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Initial Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: 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 4, 2027. The Court will give notice of this hearing to all parties. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Law Offices of R Morgan Holland vs Alejandro Ruiz Tentative Ruling: Law Offices of R Morgan Holland vs Alejandro Ruiz Case Number 25CV01342 Case Type Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/12/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Set Aside Default Tentative Ruling /media/2117 Tentative Ruling: Citibank NA vs Anita Arteaga Tentative Ruling: Citibank NA vs Anita Arteaga Case Number 25CV02751 Case Type Limited Rule 3.740 Collections (09) - under 10,000 Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Claim of Exemption Tentative Ruling /media/2100 Tentative Ruling: Richards Ranch LLC vs County of Santa Barbara et al Tentative Ruling: Richards Ranch LLC vs County of Santa Barbara et al Case Number 25CV02774 Case Type Unlimited Writ of Mandate (02) Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/05/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings 1. Demurrer, 2. Motion for Protective Order, 3. Motion to Strike Tentative Ruling /media/2107 Tentative Ruling: Californians for Homeownership Inc vs County of Santa Barbara Tentative Ruling: Californians for Homeownership Inc vs County of Santa Barbara Case Number 25CV03039 Case Type Unlimited Writ of Mandate (02) Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/05/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Demurrer Tentative Ruling /media/2106 Tentative Ruling: California Automobile Insurance Company vs Manuel David Vergara Tentative Ruling: California Automobile Insurance Company vs Manuel David Vergara Case Number 25CV05178 Case Type Unlimited Uninsured Motorist (46) Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Compel Arbitration Tentative Ruling This case will be transferred to the Anacapa Division in the South County. (Local Rule 203(c).) The petition and opposition (as well as the Civil Case Cover Sheet) indicate the alleged motor vehicle incident occurred at State Route 154 near St. Francis Ranch Drive in Santa Barbara. This falls within the venue of the South County Region. (Local Rule 201.) If the parties have some other basis for venue in the North County Region, they are directed to appear on April 28, 2026. Otherwise, the court intends to transfer the matter on that date. Tentative Ruling: Brendan Potyondy vs Pacific Coast Energy Company LP Tentative Ruling: Brendan Potyondy vs Pacific Coast Energy Company LP Case Number 25CV07665 Case Type Unlimited Wrongful Termination (36) Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/12/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Compel Tentative Ruling /media/2115 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Robert Eugene Wesolowski Tentative Ruling: Estate of Robert Eugene Wesolowski Case Number 25PR00193 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Final Distribution Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. Reserve request too high. An estate must be in a condition to be closed to justify an order for final distribution. (Prob. Code, §11640.) When debt remains unpaid, the estate is not in a condition to be closed. (Id. at subd. (c).) Petitioner admits via Supplement filed on April 22, 2026, that the $10,000 requested reserve amount is "intended to cover responding to any audit inquiries, amended filings if required, and related professional fees." (Sup., at p.2, lns 20-21.) While this admission does not appear to be for currently owed debts, it is admittedly for debts that are foreseeable. The following is from a well-respected treatise on this issue: Although not required, it is advisable to include an estimate of closing expenses. Examples of estimated closing expenses include any estate taxes, interest, and penalties that will be paid after distribution; the cost of preparing final income tax returns for the estate; the cost of transferring securities to the distributees; the cost of reasonable storage, delivery, and shipping for distribution of tangible personal property to the distributees; and the cost of certifying and recording copies of the decree of distribution of real property. See Prob C §§11642, 11750, 11753-11754. Some courts require more detailed information about the nature and amount of the anticipated closing expenses. See, e.g., San Francisco Ct R 14.35(I)(3). The personal representative may also wish to retain funds for any undisclosed or unknown liabilities, especially tax deficiencies later assessed against the decedent or the estate. Apart from the reserve for estate taxes, there are some drawbacks to setting the reserve aside specifically for possible future tax deficiencies. Such action indicates--especially if the reserve is a substantial one--misgivings about the validity of the estate's position. The reserve might also be considered a trust fund for payment of the taxes, thus extending the statutory period for assessment. See U.S. v Rose (3d Cir 1965) 346 F2d 985, 989. In addition, if the personal representative requests that the court allow for a substantial reserve (or even a reserve of more than $5,000), some courts will refuse to characterize the distribution as "final" and will require additional accounts (or waivers) before permitting distribution of any balance of the reserve. For example, in Contra Costa County, the court will not characterize the distribution as final if the personal representative requests more than a nominal reserve. If the entire estate will be distributed to a single beneficiary, such as a trust established during the decedent's lifetime, a reserve may not be necessary. (Cal. Dec. Est. Pract. (CEB 2023), §31.66.) Accordingly to this authority, and the admissions in the Supplement, it is recommended the reserve request be denied. In the alternative, the Court can allow a smaller reserve of $5,000, and set the matter out 90 days for review of the disposition of the reserve. Extraordinary Fees should be denied. The Petition requests extraordinary fees in the amount of $7,052.50. This is in addition to a $26,776.12 fee, which is set by statute. Statutory fees are presumed adequate compensation in all estates: The Legislature, after expending enormous energy on attorney's fees in probate proceedings, pointedly examining and reexamining the issue in various contexts, has determined the present statutory system of compensating lawyers is both cost effective and fair. Presumably, the public's interest is served where those bereaved are insulated from negotiating over a lawyer's fee during the traumatic post-death period. (Estate of Effron (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 915, 925-26 [emphasis added].) Unless counsel overcomes that presumption with evidence showing legal fees were incurred for extraordinary services that required legal expertise (In re Fulcher's Estate (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 710, 718.["the burden of proving the necessity for the services is on the representative claiming extraordinary fees for himself and his attorney."]), extraordinary fees will be denied. (Ibid. ["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."].)) In this case, Counsel for Petitioner has not overcome the presumption that statutory fees are adequate to compensate for work the attorney performed. The following addresses the categories in the attorney's billing statements: Rehabilitating initial petition and family tree research. The personal representative initially attempted to prosecute this matter in propria persona. In doing so, the personal representative filed the opening petition, then hired current counsel after several probate notes indicated errors that kept the petition from moving forward. All that was required to clear those notes was a Supplement (filed on June 16, 2025) that included some light family tree research and other menial tasks that do not qualify as "extraordinary" in nature. As stated in the previous notes: Tasks like clearing probate notes, the sale of the estate's real property, the Petition for Preliminary Distribution, reviewing bond, preparing and paying taxes, etc. are not extraordinary tasks in and of themselves. NONE of these tasks were out of the normal course of work performed by an attorney helping a client administer an estate worth over $1.3 million, thus are not extraordinary, and most are not even legal in nature (i.e. they did not require the skill/training of a lawyer). Selling a home is not extraordinary legal work for which extraordinary fees attach, especially when a real estate broker is paid for doing so. The supplement does not explain how the services provided during the sale of a home, WHILE EMPLOYING A REAL ESTATE AGENT, were legal in nature and extraordinary. As stated in the previous notes: While it is arguably unfair for the real estate agents to make more in fees for selling a home than for the attorney administering the estate, the legislature already took such equities into consideration when enacting the statutory fee schedule. 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. Counsel here showed no circumstances during the sale of real property that required the estate to incur "legal services" not normally needed during the sale and escrow process. Thus, 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).) 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 larger 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 under-compensation involved in handling small estates would be equitably adjusted in the long run by overcompensation in handling larger estates."].) For the reasons stated above, the extraordinary fees requested in this case are not just or reasonable. Thus, it is recommended the Court deny the entire request for extraordinary fees. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Gabriela J Anacona Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Gabriela J Anacona Case Number 25PR00355 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/05/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Court Investigator's Initial Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: 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 January 5, 2027. Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Zelma Marie Tilley Tentative Ruling: Estate of Zelma Marie Tilley Case Number 25PR00409 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Determine Succession to Real Property 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: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Matter of Alejandro Garcia Tentative Ruling: Matter of Alejandro Garcia Case Number 25PR00505 Case Type Minor/Disabled Person's Compromise Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Review of Acknowledgement and Receipt 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-356) 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: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Matter of Alejandro Garcia Tentative Ruling: Matter of Alejandro Garcia Case Number 25R00505 Case Type Minor/Disabled Person's Compromise Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Review Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Probate notes will be updated on a rolling basis, generally five days before the hearing. If no probate notes are posted two days prior to the hearing, appearance is required. (Local Rule 1721(b).) Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Nathan Sosa et al vs Santa Maria Joint Union High School District et al Tentative Ruling: Nathan Sosa et al vs Santa Maria Joint Union High School District et al Case Number 26CV00457 Case Type Unlimited Other PI/PD/WD (23) Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/12/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Strike Tentative Ruling /media/2118 Tentative Ruling: County of Santa Barbara vs Lexington National Insurance Corp Tentative Ruling: County of Santa Barbara vs Lexington National Insurance Corp Case Number 26CV00627 Case Type Unlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec) (42) Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/12/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Set Aside Tentative Ruling /media/2116 Tentative Ruling: Richards Ranch LLC vs County of Santa Barbara et al Tentative Ruling: Richards Ranch LLC vs County of Santa Barbara et al Case Number 26CV01654 Case Type Unlimited Writ of Mandate (02) Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/05/2026 - 08:30 Nature of Proceedings 1. Writ of Mandate, 2. Motion to Strike Tentative Ruling /media/2108 Tentative Ruling: Estate of Sue Ann Borgess Tentative Ruling: Estate of Sue Ann Borgess Case Number 26PR00021 Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/14/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Petition 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: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334 Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Jovani Virgilio Martinez Lopez Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Jovani Virgilio Martinez Lopez Case Number 26PR00038 Case Type Conservatorship Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Petition to Appoint Limited Conservator Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required. 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.