Renn v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 9/22/25 Renn v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento) ---- KERRY A. RENN, C104299

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 24PR001433 )

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY,

Respondent,

KURTIS J. RENN, Real Party in Interest.

Relying on section 581d of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner Kerry A. Renn seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent probate court to file a written order of dismissal signed by the court, consistent with respondent court’s minute order, so that he can perfect his appeal of the dismissal. (Statutory section citations that follow are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) We conclude petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioner describes himself as a beneficiary of the Renn Family Trust, and real party in interest Kurtis J. Renn as the trustee as well as a beneficiary of that trust.

1

In May 2024, petitioner initiated an action in respondent court by filing a “Petition for Breach of Fiduciary Duty By Trustee” against real party. In his “Objections/Answers” to the petition, real party asserted that venue was improper in Sacramento County because real party lived and the real property that was the subject of the petition was located in Santa Cruz County. Following a hearing on December 18, 2024, respondent court issued a minute order finding venue was improper in Sacramento County and, sua sponte, dismissed the petition without prejudice. Thereafter, petitioner filed an “Ex Parte Application For An Order Permitting The Filing Of A Motion To Vacate The Dismissal Of The Petition And Replace The Dismissal With An Order Of Transfer.” In his application, petitioner explained that while respondent court dismissed the petition without prejudice to facilitate its filing in Santa Cruz County, the statute of limitations had run on May 17, 2024, barring the case from being refiled. Accordingly, he sought to “replace” the dismissal order with an order transferring the petition to Santa Cruz County. Real party opposed the application, and it was denied on the merits. On May 16, 2025, petitioner submitted a proposed order for the court’s signature. The substance of the proposed order was identical to that used in respondent court’s minute order. Real party objected to the proposed order, arguing that it failed to comply with a local rule and the California Rules of Court. Petitioner filed a written response disputing real party’s objections and asserting that a signed order was necessary to appeal the dismissal, which he claimed was improper because he was not given notice prior to the hearing that his petition could be dismissed rather than transferred to Santa Cruz County. Respondent court declined to sign the proposed order. In a minute order issued on May 27, 2025, the court explained, “ ‘It is well settled that when a court enters a minute order which does not call for the preparation and filing of a formal order, the minute