Tentative Rulings

Court’s tentative rulings.  In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309 by 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing.  If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court.  Any argument is limited to five (5) minutes per party, unless the Court determines additional argument time is needed.  See California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Personal appearances are permitted.  You may also appear via video by arranging a remote appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument.

UNLESS THE COURT ORDERS OTHERWISE, THE PREVAILING PARTY SHALL SUBMIT A FORMAL ORDER SETTING OUT VERBATIM THE TENTATIVE RULING ANNOUNCED HEREIN (OR THE ORDER OF THE COURT FOLLOWING ORAL ARGUMENT SHOULD IT DIFFER) AND SHALL, THEREAFTER, PREPARE, FILE AND SERVE NOTICE OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.1312.

---

4-25-25 Civil Tentative Rulings

1. CU0000128    Douglas J. Schultz v. Marianne L. Stevenson, et al.

   Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s further responses to discovery is denied without prejudice.

“[T]he trial court's discretion to hear [a party’s] motion to compel [is] governed by [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2024.020, which provide[s] that (1) the last day for [a party] to have its motion to compel heard as a matter of right [is 15 days before the date initially set for the trial of the action], and that (2) the postponement of the trial date d[oes] not ‘operate to reopen discovery proceedings’ ‘[e]xcept as provided in Section 2024.050’—that is, except upon a successful motion for leave to reopen discovery.” Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1587-1588. 

Defendant contends that the initial trial date was December 10, 2024; plaintiff contends that the initial trial date was February 18, 2025.   The court need not resolve that issue.  If the court assumes, arguendo, that the initial trial date was February 18, 2025, the cutoff date for hearing any such motion was fifteen days prior thereto, i.e., February 3, 2025.  Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 5, 2025, nearly a month after the hearing cutoff date.   The motion, thus, is untimely.  See Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th at 1573, 1585 (“Ultimately the case was set for trial on November 14, 2005. That meant … the last day to have any discovery motion heard was October 31. … Pelton–Shepherd did not file its motion until December 6, and the hearing on the motion was not set, and did not occur, until January 11—nearly two and one-half months late. Thus, Delta is correct that the motion to compel was untimely.”). 

Moreover, a trial court cannot consider a motion to compel under these circumstances without first determining whether discovery should be reopened.  Id. at 1588 (“By simply hearing the motion to compel without first deciding whether discovery should be reopened for that purpose under all of the relevant circumstances, the trial court … thereby abused its discretion.”).  Here, no party has filed a motion to re-open discovery under section 2024.050.  

The parties’ mutual requests for sanctions are denied.  Based on the record presented, the court concludes that the imposition of sanctions against either party would be unjust.

2. CU0000512    eCapital Asset Based Lending v. Medina, Nicole et al.

P21-16971      In the Matter of David Freeman

No appearances are required.  Ruling regarding defendants’ November 12, 2024 motion for summary judgment is continued, on the court’s motion, to May 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  A written memorandum decision will likely issue in advance thereof. 

3.  CU0001134   U-Haul Co. of California, et al. vs. Clifford Webb, et al.

   Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for summary judgment against defendant Webb is granted.

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.  In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings to be addressed; (2) determine whether moving party showed facts justifying a judgment in movant's favor; and (3) determine whether the opposing party demonstrated the existence of a triable, material issue of fact. See Sun v. City of Oakland (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1182-83; McGarry v. Sax (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 983, 994; Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 289, 294.

The court finds that plaintiffs have met their burden of persuasion that all elements of each cause of action can be established and have justified a judgment in their favor.  See Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 850.  Defendant has not opposed the motion and has not demonstrated the existence of a triable, material issue of fact.  Indeed, “[w]ithout a separate statement of undisputed facts with references to supporting evidence… it is impossible … to demonstrate the existence of disputed facts.”  Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 115.

Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment.

4. CU0001438    Marika Smolensky vs. William Ganch, et al.

   Plaintiff’s stipulated motion to file a first amended complaint is granted.  Such amended complaint shall be served and filed within 10 court days after service of the signed order after hearing.

5. CU0001715    William Neil v. County of Nevada, et al.

   Defendant County’s demurrer to the second cause of action for negligence in the first amended complaint (FAC) is sustained. 

The County is statutorily immune from liability for injuries to inmates pursuant to Government Code section 844.6.  No liability can be imposed on a public entity for any injury to a prisoner resulting from an act of the prisoner himself, acts of other prisoners, acts of prison employees, or acts of prison invitees, whether committed negligently or willfully. See Lowman v. County of Los Angeles (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 613, 616.  Moreover, plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to suggest that he falls within recognized exceptions to statutory immunity under either Government Code section 814 or 845.6. 

All defendants’ demurrer to the third cause of action for the Bane Act violation in the FAC is sustained. 

The Bane Act is codified in Civil Code section 52.1 and provides a cause of action “if a person . . . interferes . . . or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual . . . of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state.”  Civ. Code § 52.1 (a) & (b).  “To plead a cause of action under the Bane Act, the plaintiff must show ‘(1) intentional interference or attempted interference with a state or federal constitutional or legal right, and (2) the interference or attempted interference was by threats, intimidation or coercion.’ ” Wiley v. Kern High School Dist. (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 765, 774.  Of note, “[s]peech is insufficient to establish the requisite threat for a violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, unless it includes the threat of violence.”  Julian v. Mission Community Hospital (2017) 11 Cal. App. 5th 360; see also Civil Code section 52.1(k). Finally, “retaliation against prisoners for their exercise of [filing prison grievances] is itself a constitutional violation and prohibited as a matter of ‘clearly established law.’ ” See e.g., Rhodes v. Robinson (9th Cir. 2005) 408 F.3d 559, 566; Pratt v. Rowland (9th Cir. 1995) 65 F.3d 802, 806, fn. 4. 

At bar, plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that any of the named correctional officers interfered or attempted to interfere with plaintiff’s ability to file grievances. Indeed, the FAC suggests that he fully availed himself of the grievance process on a number of occasions.  In addition, the operative complaint is devoid of any factual allegations that defendants interfered or attempted to interfere with plaintiff’s rights by way of cognizable threats, intimidation or coercion.  Finally, the FAC does not include any allegations that any statements by the corrections officers included a threat of violence. 

“Where the complaint is defective, ‘[i]n the furtherance of justice great liberality should be exercised in permitting a plaintiff to amend his complaint, and it ordinarily constitutes an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.’ ” Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 970–971 (citation omitted). That said, “[t]he burden of demonstrating a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment ‘is squarely on the plaintiff.’ ” McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 78.  In this case, there has been no specific showing by plaintiff that he can amend the complaint to correct these defects.  Therefore, on this record, leave to amend is denied.

An answer to the remaining causes of action shall be filed and served within 10 court days of service of the signed order after hearing.
 

6. CU0001849    Gregory Thrush vs. Jose Antonio Valdovinos

   Defendant Valdovinos’ motion to set aside the default and default judgment is denied as moot.  A stipulation to set aside the default was filed on April 9, 2025.  The court notes that the answer must actually be filed with the court.  Previously, the proposed answer was attached as an exhibit to the instant motion.  The answer shall be separately filed by April 28, 2025 and, pursuant to the stipulation, will be deemed filed as of April 2, 2025. 

7. CU0001884    Ryan Christopher Crandell v. Serbian Mafia, et al. 

   Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is denied.

Firstly, there is no proof of service of the summons, complaint, or motion on the 15 named defendants in the complaint.  See Code of Civil Procedure §§ 415.10, et. seq. and 1005(b).  Thus, the motion is denied on procedural grounds.

Secondly, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood or possibility that he will prevail on the merits at trial.  See Doe v. Regents of University of California (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 766, 773 (“Trial courts evaluate two interrelated factors in deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction. The first is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial. The second is the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued. The moving party must prevail on both factors to obtain an injunction.”); Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678  (“A trial court may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim.”).   Thus, the motion is denied on substantive grounds.

On the court’s motion, a case management conference is set for Monday, June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  The clerk shall issue a case management conference notice. Plaintiff shall serve all defendants with such notice along with the summons and complaint.

4-18-25 Civil Tentative Rulings

1.   CU0001651    Joseph Sacks vs. Navy Federal Credit Union

No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025.  On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.  No appearances are required on April 22, 2025.

Defendant’s demurrer is sustained with leave to amend in part, and sustained without leave to amend in part.

As for the causes of action for breach of contract and the implied covenant of fair dealing, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.  The complaint alleges only that the amount of the FAIR Plan premiums did not appear on the closing disclosure. The closing disclosure is a separate document from the mortgage contract. “If the action is based on an alleged breach of a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written instrument must be attached and incorporated by reference.” Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 459.  Plaintiff must attach a copy of the mortgage contract or provide all essential terms, and clearly state which terms of the contract were breached. 

As for the causes of action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.  “[A]s a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money.” Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096.  Here, plaintiff must clearly allege what actions conducted by defendant exceeded the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money.

As for the cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.  “The elements of negligent misrepresentation are ‘(1) the misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another’s reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting

damage.’” National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 35, 50.  “Fraud allegations must be pled with more detail than other causes of action. The facts constituting the fraud, including every element of the cause of action, must be alleged factually and specifically. The objectives are to give the defendant notice of definite charges which can be intelligently met, and to permit the court to determine whether, on the facts pleaded, there is any foundation, prima facie at least, for the charge of fraud.” Apollo Capital Fund, LLC v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 240 (citations and quotations omitted).  At bar, plaintiff has alleged in generic terms a claim for relief; however, he has failed to plead his claim with any level of particularity.  For example, while plaintiff alleges that defendant misrepresented the monthly mortgage payment with no grounds to believe it was true, plaintiff does not assert any specific facts in support thereof.  Plaintiff does not allege that defendant had any actual notice of the FAIR Plan disclosure prior to preparation of the closing disclosure, or otherwise allege why defendant lacked reasonable grounds to believe the monthly mortgage payment on the closing disclosure was inaccurate.   While plaintiff alleges that he justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentation, he fails to plead such reliance with any level of particularity especially in light of plaintiff’s apparent awareness of the terms of the FAIR Plan insurance costs prior to signing the closing disclosure. 

As for the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.  “TILA, title 15 of the United States Code section 1601 et seq., and its accompanying regulations (Regulation Z), 12 Code of Federal Regulations part 226.1 et seq., require specific disclosures by businesses offering consumer credit (including mortgage loans). TILA's purpose is to ‘avoid the uninformed use of credit.’ 15 U.S.C. § 1601.”  Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 244 (parentheses and date omitted).  In a case such as this one, a creditor is obliged to provide a closing disclosure, containing all information required by § 1026.38(a)–(s), at least three business days before consummation of the loan. See 12 C.F.R. § 1026.19(f)(1)(ii).  The disclosures should reflect the credit terms to which the parties are legally bound at the time of giving the disclosures. See Hauk v. JP Morgan Chase Bank United States, 552 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009).  To sustain a cause of action under TILA, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a specific TILA provision. Monreal v. GMAC Mortg., LLC (S.D. Cal. 2013) 948 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1081-1082. The plaintiff must also establish detrimental reliance to recover actual damages. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1640(a); In re Ferrell (9th Cir. 2008) 539 F.3d 1186, 1192.  Here, the instant complaint fails to allege which specific provisions of TILA were allegedly violated by Navy Federal and also fails to allege detrimental reliance. 

As for the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claim, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.  Plaintiff cannot sustain a cause of action under the CLRA because this transaction involves a mortgage, and mortgages are not goods or services subject to the CLRA. The CLRA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices … undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer….” Civ. Code, § 1770, subd. (a). California law is clear that a mortgage loan is not subject to the CLRA. Alborzian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 29, 40. Plaintiff’s reliance on two unreported federal cases to allege the CLRA should apply to mortgage loans is unavailing.

Any amended complaint shall be served and filed within 10 calendar days after service of the signed order after hearing.

2.   CL0002603     Sims v. Mahoney

No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025.  On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.  Appearances are required on April 22, 2025.  

Argument will be heard regarding defendant’s motion to quash.  Any opposition can be made orally at the time of the hearing.  See Rules of Court, rule 3.1327(b).

Defendant’s demurrer is dropped.  The demurrer was not timely filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b).  Any request for a hearing on shortened notice must be made in accordance with Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(d).

---

4-11-25 Civil Tentative Rulings

1. CL0002443     Crystal MHC, LLC vs. Peter Munyan

   Non-party Storer’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint is denied. 

Storer is not a named party.  Based on the current record, it appears that plaintiff properly served a copy of the summons and complaint on the named defendant and all occupants of the premises.  See Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Ham (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 330, 336.  To the extent that Storer contends he is entitled to remain in possession of the premises, he must file an appropriate claim of right to possession and follow the procedures set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.3.  See, e.g., Crescent Capital Holdings, LLC v. Motiv8 Investments, LLC (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1. 

A motion to quash is not an appropriate vehicle to challenge the adequacy of the complaint.  See Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 402; Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 616.  In any event, the complaint appears to plead adequately a cause of action for unlawful detainer, permissibly names doe defendants, and permissibly seeks damages associated with an unlawful detainer action.  

2. CU0000128    Douglas J. Schultz v.  Marianne L. Stevenson, et al.
    

Defendant’s January 9, 2025 Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings

Defendant’s January 9, 2025 motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. 

The motion is untimely and the court, in the exercise of discretion, declines to permit its late filing.  See Code Civ. Proc. §438 (e); Sutherland v. City of Fort Bragg (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 13, 25, n. 4. 

In addition or in the alternative, the motion lacks merit.  The court has previously ruled, more than once, “Plaintiff and [d]efendant are not married and are not spouses. Accordingly, Civil Code section 872.210 does not bar the present action for partition.”  See, e.g., Mar. 22, 2024 Memo. Dec. & Order.  The court also previously ruled that “in the exercise of discretion, [the court] recognizes the Dubai divorce decree as it relates to the status of marriage only,” and that “Defendant has failed to establish how recognition of the judgment of divorce has or will prejudice her rights or violate California public policy.”  Ibid.  Lastly, contrary to the suggestion by the defense, the operative complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a partition cause of action against defendant. See Code of Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff’s September 18, 2024 Motion for Interlocutory Judgment of Partition

Plaintiff’s September 18, 2024 motion for interlocutory judgment of partition is granted. 

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of recorded property records (Exhibits 1, 2, and 6) is granted.  Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of court records in this and other courts (Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8) is also granted. 

Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Declarations

To the extent that the court indicates that it need not resolve an objection hereafter it means that given the disposition described infra, it did not have to resolve the objection. 

The objections to the Diamond declaration are overruled as moot with one exception: the court need not resolve objection 14.

Objection 1 to the Griesbach declaration is overruled as moot; the court need not resolve any other remaining objections in connection with this declaration.

As for the Stevenson declaration, the court rules as follows with respect to the plaintiff’s objections on pp.1-6:  Objections 1-12 and 28-29 are sustained; the court need not resolve objections 13-27, 30. 

As for plaintiff’s objections on pp. 7-34 (which appears to include some duplicative numbering of objections from 16 to 30): Objections 16-25 are sustained; the court need not resolve any other remaining objections.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

The court need not resolve plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the Federal Aviation Administration registration, attached as Exhibit 1 (erroneously identified as Exhibit 6) to defendant’s opposition.

Partition

Civil Code §872.210 provides:

If the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to partition, it shall

make an interlocutory judgment that determines the interests of

the parties in the property and orders the partition of the property

and unless it is to be later determined the manner of partition.

A partition action may not be brought by a spouse in an action seeking partition of community or quasi-community property.  Civil Code §872.210.  That is not an issue in this case.  Despite multiple efforts by defendant to invalidate it, this court has recognized the validity of the Dubai divorce between the parties, determined that the parties are no longer married and determined that plaintiff’s partition action is not barred by Civil Code §872.210.

“A co-owner of property has an absolute right to partition unless barred by a valid waiver.” LEG Investments v. Boxler (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 484, 493, citing Code Civ. Proc. § 872.710(b).  An implied waiver may occur when the co-owners of the property agree to use it in a manner that is inconsistent with partition. See, e.g., Nazzisi v. Nazzisi (1962) 203 Cal. App. 2d 121 (property settlement agreement between divorced parties waived the wife’s right to partition).

In the instant case, it is undisputed that the parties took title to the subject property as joint tenants when they purchased it.  See Schultz Decl. ¶ 3; RJN ¶ 1, Ex. 1; Def. Ans. ¶ 9.  As such, either party has an absolute right to partition.  Moreover, there is also no dispute that plaintiff did not waive his right to partition.  Indeed, defendant makes no waiver argument at all in her opposition. 

Defendant contends, however, that partition should be denied because plaintiff has unclean hands. Defendant makes numerous allegations of misconduct against plaintiff to demonstrate that plaintiff has unclean hands.  For example, defendant alleges that plaintiff: 1) has been untruthful with the court as to his residency and military service; 2) has been unfaithful to his spouse; 3) initiated and completed a sham divorce proceeding in Dubai; 4) has been untruthful regarding his children and engaged in conduct to estrange them from defendant; 5) was absent during home construction, forcing defendant to make labor improvements to the property and forcing defendant to “prematurely cash out her 401K and investments to pay the mortgage”; 6) conspired with a caretaker friend on the property to create a marijuana grow and forced defendant to participate in the same; 7) used visitation as a weapon to limit time the parties’ children would be with defendant; 8) repeatedly threatened and attempted to have defendant arrested by reporting false crimes; 9) entered the subject property on various occasions in 2021 and 2022 to commit thefts of personal property; and 10) threatened and harassed defendant generally.  Defendant also alleges 11) that she paid for 50% of the mortgage from April to October 2021 and paid almost $40,000 in connection with mortgage arrears in April 2021.  The court, having carefully considered the record as a whole, is not persuaded.   

“The doctrine of unclean hands prevents a party from obtaining either legal or equitable relief when that party has acted inequitably or with bad faith relative to the matter for which relief is sought.”  People v. Wickham (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 232, 238 (italics added). However, “it is not every wrongful act nor even every fraud which prevents a suitor in equity from obtaining relief. The misconduct which brings the clean hands doctrine into operation must relate directly to the transaction concerning which the complaint is made, i.e., it must pertain to the very subject matter involved and affect the equitable relations between the litigants. Accordingly, relief is not denied because the plaintiff may have acted improperly in the past or because such prior misconduct may indirectly affect the problem before the court.”  Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 728–729 (italics added).

The instant claim is for partition of real property and the controversy to be decided is whether an interlocutory judgment to partition the real property of the parties should issue.  As for allegation 3, supra, this court has already concluded, following extensive briefing and argument, that the parties are divorced pursuant to the Dubai decision.  The overwhelming majority of the other misconduct alleged by defendant (e.g., allegations 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, supra), even if assumed to be true, is wholly unrelated to the subject matter of the instant partition action.  Even if some of the alleged misconduct is assumed true and considered to be tangentially related to the real property subject to dispute (e.g.,  allegations 5, 6, 9, 11, supra), defendant has failed to persuasively establish how any of that conduct pertains to the instant partition action and affects the equitable relations between the parties as to the property.  It is undisputed that each party, by title, has a 50% interest in the property and neither has waived the same.  That said, defendant has failed to persuasively establish how any of that purported misconduct, as a matter of fairness or equity, should affect either plaintiff’s unwaived right to partition in connection with his one-half interest in the property or defendant’s own unwaived right to partition in connection with her one-half interest in the property.  In short, even assuming defendant engaged in numerous bad or wrongful acts, defendant has not established to the satisfaction of the court that plaintiff has acted inequitably or with bad faith relative to this real property partition matter for which he seeks relief.  The showing made does not demonstrate that, as a matter of equity, plaintiff should be barred from obtaining any relief.

Thus, the court finds and concludes that the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the real property, and that both parties have a 50% interest in the same.

As a general matter, “[t]he court shall order that the property be divided among the parties in accordance with their interests in the property as determined in the interlocutory judgment.”  Code Civ. Proc. § 872.810.  However, “[n]otwithstanding Section 872.810, the court shall order that the property be sold and the proceeds be divided among the parties in accordance with their interests in the property” if, among other things,  “[t]he court determines that, under the circumstances, sale and division of the proceeds would be more equitable than division of the property.”  Code Civ. Proc. § 872.820.

Such is the case here.  The parties both agree that the real property cannot be divided.  See SAC ¶ 27 and Def. Ans. ¶ 27.   The court agrees and determines that, under the circumstances, sale and division of the proceeds would be more equitable than division of the property.   

Given the contentious nature of this litigation as displayed in the declarations and exhibits to this motion and others, a referee is clearly necessary and is in the interests of both parties.  The referee will oversee the sale of the property and, among other things, render an accounting. See Civil Code §873.010 (allowing the court to determine the need and amount of a referee’s bond, set the referee’s compensation, instruct the referee, and require the referee to provide interim and final accountings). 

In summary, plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory judgment of partition by sale and for appointment of a referee is granted. 

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the Court hereby appoints Matthew Taylor as referee. 

The parties did not meet and confer successfully as to the proposed interlocutory judgment as directed.  The court will issue an interlocutory judgment.  Plaintiff shall provide the court clerk with a word format of plaintiff’s last proposed interlocutory judgment.  See Feb. 18, 2025 Decl. of Shofner, Ex. E. 

3. CU0001190    Alice Branton, et al. vs. Zarlasht Fakiri, D.O., et al.

   Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for relief from jury waiver is granted.  “The court may, in its discretion upon just terms, allow a trial by jury although there may have been a waiver of a trial by jury.”  Code Civ. Proc. §631(g).  Here, relief for plaintiffs is warranted.    The April 7, 2026, trial will be before a jury.

   
    
4. CU0001521    Ramy Kaufler Eden vs. Sherali Gas Company, Inc.

   Plaintiff’s motion to enter consent judgment is granted.

After a Prop. 65 matter is filed in court, its settlement requires court approval upon noticed motion.  See Health & Saf. Code § 25249.7(f)(4).

The court may only approve the settlement if: (i) Any warning required by the settlement complies with Prop. 65; (ii) Any award of attorney’s fees provided by the settlement is reasonable under California law; and (iii) Any penalty amount provided by the settlement is reasonable based on the criteria set forth in Health and Safety Code section  25249.7(b)(2).

Health and Safety Code section 25249.6 prohibits businesses from exposing individuals to listed carcinogens “without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual.” Health & Saf. Code § 25249.6.  Here, the consent judgment requires defendant to provide the “safe harbor” warning for service stations which mirrors the safe harbor warning set forth in the Code of Regulations.  See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 27, §

25600(a). As such, the warning complies with Prop. 65.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(10) permits the recovery of attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(10).  A consent judgment is “a judgment entered by a court under the authority of, and in accordance with, the contractual agreement of the parties.” Norgart v. Upjohn (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 383, 400.  Here, the parties have contracted, via the consent judgment, for the payment of attorneys’ fees. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 provides another basis for the court’s award of attorney’s fees in this matter.  Such provision authorizes a court to award attorneys’ fees to a party in an action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if a significant benefit has been conferred on the public and the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement make the award appropriate.   California Code of Regulation, title 11, section 3201 states that in a Prop. 65 case “alleging failure to warn, a settlement that provides for the giving of a clear and reasonable warning, where there had been no warning provided prior to the sixty-day notice, for an exposure that appears to require a warning, is presumed to confer a significant benefit on the public.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 3201(b)(1)

The court finds the stipulated attorney fee award of $19,000 to have conferred a significant public benefit and the amount to be reasonable.

In determining the reasonableness of a penalty, a court considers the following factors: (A) The nature and extent of the violation. (B) The number of, and severity of, the violations. (C) The economic effect of the penalty on the violator. (D) Whether the violator took good faith measures to comply with this chapter and the time these measures were taken. (E) The willfulness of the violator’s misconduct. (F) The deterrent effect that the imposition of the penalty would have on both the violator and the regulated community as a whole. (G) Any other factor that justice may require. Health & Saf. Code § 25249.7.

Here, the Court finds the penalty of $4,000 is reasonable.  The failure to warn was moderate in nature in that only one service station failed to post the warning.  Additionally, defendant is willing to remedy the failure to post the warning.

The motion to enter consent judgment is granted.  All remaining trial and pre-trial dates are vacated.
 

5.     CU0001613    Judith and Coleman Bowen v. Town of Truckee

The Town of Truckee (“Town”)’s 19 February 2025 demurrer to the first amended petition and complaint is sustained without leave to amend.  The Town’s 19 February 2025 motion to strike is denied without prejudice as moot. 

The court applies the well-established standards regarding a demurrer.  See e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (a), (e), (f); Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 475, 477;  Ellenberger v. Espinosa (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 947; Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 210, 225–226; Flying Dutchman Park, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1134.

The Town’s request for judicial notice is granted.  The objections by petitioner thereto are overruled. 

The Amended Petition/Complaint and All Claims

The Town demurs to the first amended petition and complaint (as well as each claim therein) arguing that: 1) The amended petition/complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).  2) The Court has no jurisdiction over the subjects of the causes of action alleged in the petition/complaint.  See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (a).

Petitioners allege the Town violated their right to conduct transient rentals by issuing an administrative citation and denying their appeal.  See FAP ¶¶ 9, 11, 30–44, 49–105, 111–114. The Town argues, first, that petitioners had no vested right to operate short-term rentals.  The court agrees that the petition/complaint is defective in this regard.

Petitioners do no[t] dispute that [the Town] may attempt to restrict short-term residential rentals of RVs in the Town of Truckee,” and assert only that they must be allowed to maintain their “lawful nonconforming use” or otherwise be paid compensation for a taking under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution.  First Amd. Pet. and Comp. (FAP) ¶ 49.  Per petitioners:

The Park was built in approximately 1960 prior to incorporation of the Town. Petitioners have owned the Park since approximately 2017. The historical use of the Property has always been short-term stays since 1960 as both a motel and mobilehome park using Recreational Vehicles (“RVs”) spaces permitted for mobilehomes. To be certain, the Park was previously named “Sunset Inn Motel and RV park” and used as a short-term rental property for both short term RV’s and short-term stays in the motel built on its site wherein those same motel units are still being used today as apartments. The Park has been operating via a conditional use permit (“CUP”) or as a legal nonconforming use for decades.

…

Petitioners believe they are operating as a legal non-confirming use, and not a CUP, because the property is in the General Commercial (referred to as “CG”) zoning district and that district does not even allow a mobilehome park or RV park whatsoever based on current Town of Truckee regulations with a CUP or not. …  Thus, Respondent’s argument that that the zoning designation does not permit short-term RV rentals is a red herring since the Park itself is not permitted to operate whatsoever in such a zoning district under current regulations. … Again, this Property and mobilehome park has existed prior to the Town’s incorporation which would explain this legal non-conforming use status.

FAP ¶ 9 (italics supplied). 

            The Park has sixteen (16) RV’s in mobilehome spaces intended for short-term           rentals (i.e. 30 days or less).

FAP ¶ 13.

Four of the sixteen RV’s at the Park have been used as short-term rentals for several years. Petitioners have always intended to eventually convert the remaining twelve (12) RV’s to short-term rentals. Petitioners have invested considerable capital, in excess of $5.6 million in purchasing and maintaining the sixteen (16) RVs as part of this short-term rental business model.

FAP ¶ 14 (italics supplied).

 “A nonconforming use is one which lawfully existed prior to the effective date of the zoning restriction and which continued thereafter in nonconformity with the ordinance.” County of Sonoma v. Rex (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1289, 1297.  “Nonuse is not a nonconforming use. This rule is consistent with the further rule that reuse may be prohibited when a nonconforming use is voluntarily abandoned.” Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach (1971) 6 Cal.3d 279, 286 (citation omitted); see Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 552 (“Nonuse is not a nonconforming use… and reuse may be prohibited if a nonconforming use has been voluntarily abandoned.”)  “The burden is on the party asserting the right to a nonconforming use to show the lawful and continuing use in place at the time the new ordinance is enacted.”  Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1534, 1561 (italics in original and added). 

At present, petitioners have failed to allege that their nonconforming use is one that was both lawful and continuing at the time of the effective date of Ordinance 2023-12.

First, after the time of the 1993 incorporation of the Town of Truckee and adoption of its municipal code, the judicially noticeable facts suggest that petitioners’ property (located in an area zoned for general commercial) was never zoned for the specific use to which they put it.  See City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418, 433 (“[W]here a particular use of land is not expressly enumerated in a city’s municipal code as constituting a permissible use, it follows that such use is impermissible.”); Truckee Municipal Code (“TMC”) TMC §§ 18.03.020, subd. (E) (“If a proposed use of land is not specifically listed… the use shall not be allowed”), 18.12.020 (definition of Commercial General), 18.12.030 (table identifying permitted uses), Town Exh. 1 (zoning map).   Moreover, it appears that petitioners never obtained the required transient occupancy registration certificate.  See TMC § 3.24.020. 

Second, as for the time period prior to incorporation of the Town in 1993 and its municipal code, the FAP  does not coherently allege facts demonstrating that transient rentals of single-family dwellings were lawful under then existing County of Nevada law, the Mobilehome Parks Act or Department of Housing and Community Development regulations.  Moreover, and of great importance, the FAP does not set forth any specific facts to suggest that there was lawful and continuous nonconforming use from prior to 1993 until the effective date of Ordinance 2023-12.  Indeed, the FAP specifically alleges, “Four of the sixteen RV’s at the Park have been used as short-term rentals for several years.” FAP ¶ 14 (italics supplied).

Petitioners have failed to state a claim for a valid noncoforming use. The demurrer to the amended petition/complaint is sustained on this ground. 

The Town argues that petitioners failed to pay owed transient occupancy taxes (“TOT”), barring their claim.  The court disagrees. 

“A taxpayer ordinarily must pay a tax before commencing a court action to challenge the collection of the tax. This rule, commonly known as ‘pay first, litigate later,’ is well established and is based on a public policy reflected in the state Constitution, several statutes, and numerous court opinions.” Mojave Pistachios, LLC v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 605, 625, quoting County of Los Angeles v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1116. Of note, there are “several recognized exceptions to the ‘pay first’ rule. One arises when the tax ordinance being challenged provides for criminal penalties for failure to pay.”  Mojave Pistachios, LLC, 99 Cal.App.5th at 628.  “An infraction is a criminal matter.”  People v. Simpson (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th Supp. 6, 9, citing Pen. Code, §§ 16, 19.6. Truckee Municipal Code section 3.24.140, under “Chapter 3.24 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX,” explicitly notes, “Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable by fine as determined by the Court.”  Here, the town issued a citation and imposed a fine of $500.00.

The Town argues that petitioners never requested a hearing or appeal on the amount of their overdue TOT, failing to exhaust administrative remedies and depriving the Court of jurisdiction in connection therewith.  The court agrees with respect to the 25 February 2024 tax lien associated with an assessment of approximately $27,000. 

Exhaustion is jurisdictional. See California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Board (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1151, and an exhaustion requirement is inferred where procedural requirements “provide affirmative indications of the Legislature’s desire” that a public entity be allowed to consider, in the first instance, issues raised during that process.  See Williams & Fickett v. County of Fresno (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1258, 1271.  “[F]ailure to exhaust administrative remedies is a proper basis for demurrer.” Gupta v. Stanford University (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 407, 411.  Chapter 3.24 of the Truckee Municipal Code provides a detailed procedure and timelines for challenging a TOT assessment, including a hearing before the tax administrator where the operator can present evidence and arguments, and provides for an administrative appeal to the Town Council.   See TMC §§ 3.24.090; 3.24.100.  Petitioners never requested a hearing or appeal on the amount of their overdue TOT as required within 10 days of the 25 January 2024 notice; as such, those amounts became “final and conclusive.”  TMC § 3.24.090; Town Exhs. 7 and 12.  The demurrer to the amended petition/complaint is sustained on this ground. 

The Sixth Cause of Action

Petitioners’ sixth cause of action seeks a declaration the Town’s lien is void and petitioners may resume their rental operation.  See FAP ¶¶ 111–114. However, because mandate relief is available here, declaratory relief is not. See Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 931, 951 & fn. 27; Mental Health Assn. in California v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 952, 959.  “It is settled that an action for declaratory relief is not appropriate to review an administrative decision.” State of California v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 249. “Declaratory relief also cannot be joined with a writ of mandate reviewing an administrative determination.” City of Pasadena v. Cohen (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1467.  The demurrer to this claim is sustained on this ground as well. 

The Second Cause of Action

Petitioners’ second cause of action seeks a declaration the Town violated their due process rights under the California Constitution by failing to acknowledge petitioners have a vested right to conduct short term rentals on the property and damages related thereto. (FAP ¶¶ 69– 81.) As noted previously, because a writ of mandate is pled, declaratory relief is unavailable.  In addition, the due process clause of the California Constitution does not provide a private cause of action for tort damages.  See Katzberg v. Regents of University of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300, 326.  The demurrer to this claim is sustained on this ground as well.

The Fourth Cause of Action

Petitioners’ fourth cause of action seeks a declaration that Ordinance 2023-12 is unconstitutional special legislation or a bill of attainder because it “attempt[s] to target only one of the ten registered mobilehome parks in Truckee (along with exempting at least one other mobilehome park and not Sunset Inn)….”  FAP ¶ 96. Once again, because writ relief is available, no declaratory relief cause of action is available here. The demurrer to this claim is sustained on this ground as well.

Leave to Amend

“Where the complaint is defective, ‘[i]n the furtherance of justice great liberality should be exercised in permitting a plaintiff to amend his complaint, and it ordinarily constitutes an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.’ ” Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 970–971 (citation omitted). However, “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that “there is a reasonable possibility the plaintiff could cure the defect with an amendment.” Jo Redland Trust, U.A.D. 4-6-05 v. CIT Bank, N.A. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 142, 162. “The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.” Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.

In this case, there is has been no specific showing by petitioners that they can amend the petition/complaint to correct these defects.  Moreover, petitioners have previously been afforded an opportunity to amend their pleading and the fundamental defect remains.  Therefore, on this record, leave to amend is denied.

---

April 4, 2025 Civil Tentative Rulings

1. CL0002037     Joseph Pryor v. Sergio Aguilar, Jr.

Defendant Aguilar’s February 24, 2025, motion to set aside the default and default judgment is denied.   

 Firstly, defendant, the moving party, has failed to file a notice of hearing for today’s hearing and proof that the motion has been served on plaintiff.  See California Rules of Court, rules 3.110 and 3.1300; Code of Civil Procedure § 1005. 

 Secondly, this court no longer has jurisdiction to hear the present motion.  “An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding” where “[t]he sole issue before the court is the right to possession.”  Vasey v. California Dance Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 746-747.  It follows that there is nothing left that the court must decide in an unlawful detainer action once possession of the property has been determined.  Ibid.; see also Boyd v. Carter (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 11, n. 5 (“This summary unlawful detainer proceeding concerned the right to possession of the premises, a matter that is no longer in issue because the Carters were forcibly evicted. The judgment having been reversed, the parties remain free to litigate any claims for damages arising from their lease or landlord/tenant relationship.”).  Here, the return on the writ of possession was executed on March 4, 2025, and filed March 7, 2025.  As possession of the property has been restored to the plaintiff, relief is no longer available to the defendant in this unlawful detainer proceeding. 

Accordingly, the motion to set aside default and default judgment is denied on both procedural and substantive grounds.
 

2. CU0000591    Antonio De La Pena, et al. vs. Nevada Woods Apartments

   Plaintiffs’ motion to strike and tax costs is granted in part and otherwise denied.

Plaintiffs’ motion to tax costs because of financial hardship is denied.  “[Plaintiffs] cite[] no authority, and [the court is] aware of none, holding that the language of section 1033.5 allowing costs that are ‘reasonable in amount’ and ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation’ also confers authority for the court to analyze whether costs are reasonable based on the losing party's ability to pay.”  LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1124–1125. 

The motion to tax the credit card transaction fees of $13.75 and $28.05 is denied.  These fees appear to be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.  See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(c).

The court accepts defendant’s concession to tax the two $45.00 “shipping and handling” charges.  Postage fees are not permissible costs.  The motion to tax these items is granted.  See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(b)(3).

The motion to tax the two $75.00 “zoom” charges is granted.  Zoom fees are similar to telephone charges, which are expressly not permitted.  See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(b)(3).

The court accepts defendant’s concession to tax the late fee of $300.00.  The motion to tax is granted as to this item.

The motion to tax the $294.00 in “court dispatch fees” is denied.  These fees appear to be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.  See Code Civ. Proc. §1033.5(c).

3. CU0000861    Patrick H. Dwyer vs. Dr. Andrea L. Harris, et al.

   Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is continued on the court’s own motion to April 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  Plaintiff attempted to file the present motion on January 28, 2025; however, such filing was rejected by the clerk’s office due to an unavailable hearing date.  Thereafter, on February 21, 2025, plaintiff re-noticed his motion.  However, plaintiff seemingly did not file the memorandum of points and authorities or the separate statement.  As such, the court’s file does not have all documents necessary to review the motion.  Because the motion is opposed substantively, this court grants plaintiff permission to correct this issue.  All documents related to the motion to compel further responses shall be filed by April 10, 2025.

   
    
4. CU0000951    Everlie Dahlen vs. Mark Claydon, et al.

   Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Discovery is granted in part, and deferred in part pending argument.

As to item # 21, the request is moot.  Plaintiff provided a further response after the present motion was filed.

As to item #22 and #23, the motion is granted.   Plaintiff must produce all responsive documents under her control responsive to the request. 

As to item #25, plaintiff shall verify whether she is pursuing a claim for severe emotional distress, treatment therefor from Joan Goddard, MFT, and resulting loss of income from such emotional distress, or withdrawing the same.  If plaintiff is pursuing such a claim, the court will need further information from the parties to determine whether plaintiff has implicitly and partially waived her constitutional right of privacy in connection with all or a portion of the Goddard records.   See Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.

The requests for sanctions for $1,800.00 are granted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010(e)(unmeritorious objection without substantial justification), (i)(failure to meet/confer), section 2023.050 (sanctions), 2031.310(h) (unsuccessful opposition without substantial justification or showing that the same would be unjust).
 

5. CU0001723    Umpqua Bank vs. Joseph A. Miller, DMD, Inc., et al.

   Umpqua Bank’s request for the court to expand the receivership to one for all purposes is granted.

The appointment of a receiver is a provisional equitable remedy. The receiver's role is to preserve the status quo between the parties while litigation is pending.  See Southern California Sunbelt Developers, Inc. v. Banyan Limited Partnership (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 910, 925.  “ ‘The receiver is but the hand of the court, to aid it in preserving and managing the property involved in the suit for the benefit of those to whom it may ultimately be determined to belong.’”  Marsch v. Williams (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 238, 248 (citations omitted).  A receivership  is “ ‘an ancillary remedy which does not affect the ultimate outcome of the action.’ ” California Sunbelt Developers, Inc.,  8 Cal.App.5th at 925. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 564 generally sets forth the statutory circumstances under which a receiver can be appointed.  Marsch, 23 Cal.App.4th at 248.

“The requirements of [section 564] are jurisdictional, and without a showing bringing the receiver within one of the subdivisions of that section the court's order appointing a receiver is void.”  Turner v. Superior Court (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 804, 811. To invoke the authority of the court to appoint a receiver under section 564, a moving party must establish the jurisdictional requirement by a preponderance of the evidence.  See Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 869, 873 (Under subdivision (b)(1), the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence a “joint interest with [the] defendant in the property; that the same was in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured, and that plaintiff's right to possession was probable.”)  “ ‘Evidence to justify the appointment of a receiver may be presented “in the form of allegations in a complaint or other pleading, by affidavit or by   testimony.” ’ ”  Republic of China v. Chang (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 124, 132 (italics omitted).

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 564, a receiver can be appointed, inter alia, in the following cases:

(1) In an action … by a creditor to subject any property or fund to the creditor's claim …, on the application of the plaintiff, or of any party whose right to or interest in the property or fund, or the proceeds of the property or fund, is probable, and where it is shown that the property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured.

…

(6) Where a corporation is insolvent, or in imminent danger of insolvency, or has forfeited its corporate rights.

…

(9) In all other cases where necessary to preserve the property or rights of any party.

The court has considered the record as whole including all submissions by plaintiff, the current appointed receiver and defendants.  The court is persuaded, on the record presented, that a receivership is warranted and necessary.  Plaintiff has established by a preponderance of credible evidence that: (1) it has a probable right or interest in the property sought to be placed in receivership and that the property is in danger of destruction, removal or misappropriation; (2) the instant dentistry business is, at the very least, in imminent danger of insolvency; and (3) the instant dentistry business has defaulted on its loan obligations to plaintiff and contractually consented to the appointment of a receiver upon default.  Defendants have not presented sufficient admissible, compelling or credible evidence to persuade the court otherwise.  

6. CU0001762    William Dean Ferreira vs. Stephanie Diane Stone-Ferreira, et al.

   On the court’s motion, defendant Malone’s Anti-Slapp motion to strike is continued until May 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.in Dept. 6.  Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition on March 28, 2025.  Defendant Malone filed a reply thereto on April 1, 2025.  The court has made no decision as to whether it will consider the untimely opposition.  That said, defendant Malone is granted permission to file a supplemental reply addressing the merits no later than 10 court days prior to the scheduled hearing. 

7. CU0001788    Robert Tonnies v. Mark Gold

Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted in part. 

Preliminarily, plaintiff filed an untimely opposition that does not contain proof of service on the defendant.  In the court’s discretion, the court has read and considered the opposition.

As to the merits, Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.03 provides: “The prevailing party in an action brought under this section may be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees, if any.” (Italics added).  This provision does not define “prevailing party.” 

Courts interpreting similar provisions in the context of civil harassment petitions have looked to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 to define prevailing party.  See Adler v. Vaicius (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1770, 1777 (“Since [Code of Civil Procedure] section 527.6 does not define “prevailing party,” the general definition of “prevailing party” in section 1032 may be used.”);  Elster v. Friedman (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1443(same).

Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a)(4) provides: “ ‘Prevailing party’ includes ... a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.”  Any award of attorney’s fees is discretionary.  See Krug v. Maschmeier (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 796, 802 (“decision whether to award attorney fees to a prevailing party—plaintiff or defendant—under section 527.6(i) is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court.”). 

“Courts construing statutes that contain attorney fees provisions that do not define the term ‘prevailing party,’ . . .  have adopted th[e] practical approach to determine the recoverability of attorney fees in pretrial voluntary dismissal cases.”  Castro v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1020.  “Under the practical approach, the court determines the prevailing party by analyzing which party realized its litigation objectives.”  Id. at 1019; see, e.g., Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 614-23.

In the present case, the action was voluntarily dismissed by petitioner after respondent filed a detailed factual response in the companion case, CU0001791.  The court concludes that respondent was the prevailing party that realized their litigation objectives.

Thus, the motion for attorney’s fees is granted.  Reasonable fees are $1,837.50 (6.125 hours at $300.00 per hour).
 

 8.  CU0001791   Robert Tonnies v. Karen Nathanson

Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted in part. 

Preliminarily, plaintiff filed an untimely opposition that does not contain proof of service on the defendant.  In the court’s discretion, the court has read and considered the opposition.

As to the merits, Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.03 provides: “The prevailing party in an action brought under this section may be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees, if any.” (Italics added).  This provision does not define “prevailing party.” 

Courts interpreting similar provisions in the context of civil harassment petitions have looked to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 to define prevailing party.  See Adler v. Vaicius (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1770, 1777 (“Since [Code of Civil Procedure] section 527.6 does not define “prevailing party,” the general definition of “prevailing party” in section 1032 may be used.”);  Elster v. Friedman (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1443(same).

Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(a)(4) provides: “ ‘Prevailing party’ includes ... a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.”  Any award of attorney’s fees is discretionary.  See Krug v. Maschmeier (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 796, 802 (“decision whether to award attorney fees to a prevailing party—plaintiff or defendant—under section 527.6(i) is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court.”). 

“Courts construing statutes that contain attorney fees provisions that do not define the term ‘prevailing party,’ . . .  have adopted th[e] practical approach to determine the recoverability of attorney fees in pretrial voluntary dismissal cases.”  Castro v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1020.  “Under the practical approach, the court determines the prevailing party by analyzing which party realized its litigation objectives.”  Id. at 1019; see, e.g., Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 614-23.

In the present case, the action was voluntarily dismissed by petitioner after respondent filed a detailed factual response.  The court concludes that respondent was the prevailing party that realized its litigation objectives.

Thus, the motion for attorney’s fees is granted.  Reasonable fees are $1,837.50 (6.125 hours at $300.00 per hour).
 

9.         PR0000214     Estate of Mathew Jay Forrest

Ms. Tapella’s motion to be relieved as counsel is granted.  This order shall become effective upon filing proof of service of the signed order after hearing on the client, Md. Akin.  The court hereby sets a status hearing regarding representation for May 19, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  Ms. Akin is ordered to appear.  Ms. Tapella is directed to include such hearing date and order in her proposed order after hearing.

3-28-25 Civil Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

1.  CL0001166    GAYLORD SPURGEON, et al. vs. JOEL PEREZ, et al.

   This tentative ruling is issued by Judge Horn (Ret.).  If oral argument is requested, such oral argument shall be heard on Friday, March 28, 2025, at 10:00 am in Dept. 6.

Defendant Happy Daze’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.  The court notes that three defendants initially filed the present motion.  However, as defendants Lemke and Perez have been dismissed, the case remains solely against defendant Happy Daze.

Standard of Review

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.  In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings to be addressed; (2) determine whether moving party showed facts justifying a judgment in movant's favor; and (3) determine whether the opposing party demonstrated the existence of a triable, material issue of fact. Sun v. City of Oakland (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1182-83; McGarry v. Sax (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 983, 994; Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 289, 294.

Objections to Evidence

Defendants’ Objections to the Declaration of Robert Lemke are overruled in their entirety.  Robert Lemke, as officer and manager has authority to testify as to the authentication of the business records.

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’ Objections are overruled in their entirety. 

Factual Background

Plaintiffs purchased an RV from Defendant Happy Daze on September 17, 2016 for $26,000.00.  Plaintiffs allege Defendant intentionally concealed a mechanical defect in the RV, which was not discovered until 2022.

Analysis

The sole cause of action in the complaint is for intentional misrepresentation.  “The pleadings determine the issues to be addressed by a summary judgment motion … and the declarations filed in connection with such motion ‘must be directed to the issues raised by the pleadings.” (Knapp v. Doherty, (2004) 123 Cal. App. 4th 76, 84.)  There is no cause of action set forth for negligent misrepresentation.  Thus, Plaintiffs’ arguments in opposition to the motion relating to negligent misrepresentation are without merit.

To establish a claim for intentional misrepresentation under California Law, a plaintiff must prove each of the following elements, “(1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage.” (Aton Ctr., Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1245.) A misrepresentation is an assertion made by the defendant with the knowledge that it is or may be untrue.  (Seeger v. Odell (1941) 18 Cal.2d 409, 414.)  

Here, Plaintiffs have provided no evidence whatsoever that Defendant Happy Daze had knowledge of the falsity of any statements made.  Further, there are no allegations of “‘false representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered.’ ” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974, quoting Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 55.)

Conclusion

Thus, the motion for summary judgment is granted.  Defendant shall prepare a proposed Judgment for this Court’s signature.

The CMC is dropped, as no trial date is necessary.

2.  CU0001024   WALTER NICHOLAS et al vs. FCA US, LLC
    

Plaintiffs’ February 25, 2025, motion to continue defendant’s summary judgment motion is granted for purposes of briefing only; it is denied for purposes of conducting further discovery.   
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), provides:

If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due. 

“Given the high stakes involved in motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication, continuances under section 437c, subdivision (h), are virtually mandated upon a good faith showing by affidavit that a continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to justify opposition to the motion.”   Braganza v. Albertson's LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 144, 152 (citation and quotations omitted.)  “The affidavit is required to show that (1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain [or discover] these facts.”  Ibid. (quotations omitted).  Of note, “a party who seeks a continuance under section 437c, subdivision (h), must show why the discovery necessary to oppose the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication could not have been completed sooner, and accordingly requires the court to grant the continuance.”  Id. at 156.   

At bar, the motion for summary judgment was filed on December 19, 2024 and set for hearing on March 7, 2025.  Defendant’s opposition was due on February 14, 2025.  After the opposition was due, on February 20, 2025, plaintiffs filed their PMK notice of deposition set for March 4, 2025, which plaintiffs contend is essential to their claim for fraudulent inducement-concealment.  Of note plaintiffs have made no showing whatsoever as to why this discovery could not have been initiated and completed in advance of their opposition deadline.  On this record, plaintiffs have failed to exercise appropriate diligence in connection with the discovery at issue.  Their request for a continuance to conduct discovery is denied. See, e.g., id. at 156 (affirming denial of continuance where plaintiff failed to show diligence in completing floor inspection and testing). 

The summary judgment motion will be reset for hearing on May 16, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., the first available hearing date.  The parties shall file their remaining briefs in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.  Trial shall be set at a case management conference calendared for June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

3.  CU0001845   MARK GOLD, et al. vs. ROBERT A. TONNIES, et al.

   Defendants’ February 24, 2025, motion to dismiss is denied.  Defendants have failed to include the following in connection with their motion, among other things: a notice of motion, see California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(a), a memorandum of points and authorities, see rule 3.1112(a)(3), and a proof of service.  See Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b).   Assuming, arguendo, that defendants’ motion to dismiss is a demurrer, defendants have not established that the various causes of action, as alleged, fail to state claims for relief. 

---

3-21-25 Civil Tentative Rulings

1.  CL0002280   Ian Garfinkel v. KAF&F Properties LLC

   Defendant Oreda Hagy’s January 17, 2025, motion to set aside the default and default judgment is denied. 

Firstly, defendant, the moving party, has failed to file a notice of hearing for today’s hearing and proof that the motion has been served on plaintiff.  See California Rules of Court, rules 3.110 and 3.1300; Code of Civil Procedure § 1005.

Secondly, this court no longer has jurisdiction to hear the present motion.  “An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding” where “[t]he sole issue before the court is the right to possession.”  Vasey v. California Dance Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 746-747.  It follows that there is nothing left that the court must decide in an unlawful detainer action once possession of the property has been determined.  Ibid.; see also Boyd v. Carter (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 11, n. 5 (“This summary unlawful detainer proceeding concerned the right to possession of the premises, a matter that is no longer in issue because the Carters were forcibly evicted. The judgment having been reversed, the parties remain free to litigate any claims for damages arising from their lease or landlord/tenant relationship.”).  Here, the return on the writ of possession was executed on January 23, 2025 and filed January 29, 2025.  As possession of the property has been restored to the plaintiff, relief is no longer available to the defendant in this unlawful detainer proceeding.

 

2.  CU0001309   Quinn Coburn vs. Daniel Marsh

   Defendant’s February 21, 2025, motion for a stay is procedurally defective.  Defendant, the moving party, has failed to file proof that the motion has been served on plaintiff.  See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300; Code of Civil Procedure § 1005.

The court, on its own motion, continues the previously issued stay in connection with the December 19, 2024 writ of execution and amended writ of execution.

The court, on its own motion, directs the parties to show cause why the default, default judgment, abstract of judgment and writ of possession should not be set aside based on potential inadequate service of process.

The proof of service filed on April 15, 2024 indicates that defendant was served by personal delivery of the summons and complaint to defendant’s wife on April 12, 2024 without additional elaboration. 

     

Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b) provides:

If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.

The parties shall address whether service has been properly effectuated under this statute.

Plaintiff shall file and serve his brief by April 4, 2025, noon.  Defendant shall file and serve his brief by April 18, 2025. A hearing regarding the same is set for May 9, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6.

3.   CU0001602    Stonecrest Acquisitions, LLC vs. County of Nevada

The January 22, 2025, demurrer to the first amended petition by the County of Nevada is sustained without leave to amend.

 “A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.”  Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.  “It has been consistently held that ‘“a plaintiff is required only to set forth the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action”’” Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn. Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099, cited with approval by Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550. 

A demurrer lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.  Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.30, 430.70. Thus, the only issue addressed by a demurrer is “whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.'”  Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; Accord McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co.  (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 72, 79.

Carloss v. County of Alameda (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 116, 126–127, sets forth the general law with respect to the dispute at issue:

 “The general revenue of a city and county is collected by a tax on all nonexempt real property within the jurisdiction of the taxing agency.” (5 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed.) § 11:158, p. 11–512.) Under the statute, tax on real property “is a lien against the property assessed.” (§ 2187.) If the tax is unpaid, a default is declared and tax-defaulted residential property may be sold after five years of delinquency. (§§ 3351-3352, 3361, subd. (a).) Tax-defaulted property is generally sold at public auction to the highest bidder. (§§ 3691, 3693.) The sale proceeds are used to pay taxes and costs. (§§ 3698.5, 4672, 4672.1, 4672.2, 4673, 4673.1.) Any excess in the sale proceeds is held in a trust fund and “parties of interest” in the property have one year to file a claim for the excess proceeds. (§§ 4674, 4675.) Unclaimed proceeds are transferred to the county general fund. (§ 4674.)

“[P]arties of interest and their order of priority are: [¶] (A) First, lienholders of record prior to the recordation of the tax deed to the purchaser in order of their priority. [¶] (B) Second, any person with title of record to all or any portion of the property prior to recordation of the tax deed to the purchaser.” ( § 4675, subd. (e)(1).)

Id. at 126-127 (italics added). 

Critical to resolution of the instant dispute is the meaning of title of record. 

“Title of record” is not defined in the statute or elsewhere in any California code. Title is generally understood to denote ownership or “the legal right to control and dispose of property” (Black's Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) p. 1522, col. 2) and “title of record” has been variously defined as “title as it appears in the public records after the deed is properly recorded” (id. at pp. 1523, col. 2, 1524, col. 1) or “[a] title to real estate, evidenced and provable by one or more conveyances or other instruments all of which are duly entered on the public land records” (Black's Law Dict. (5th ed. 1979)  pp. 1145, col. 2, 1146, col. 1).  “Any written ‘instrument’ that affects the title to or possession of real property” may be recorded (5 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 11:4, p. 11–21), including a grant deed, deed of trust and numerous other instruments (id., § 11:6). While a recorded grant deed may be the best evidence, there is no language in the statute specifying that only a recorded grant deed may establish “title of record.”

Id. at 127–128.

Of significance, however, “title of record may be established in the absence of a recorded grant deed.”  Id. at 132.  The standard is as follows:

“Title of record” must be proven, and a recorded grant deed will most often be the best and simplest form of evidence to establish that fact. But when for some reason the grant deed cannot be produced, that proof may consist of recorded instruments of various types, the assessor's records, and testimony that, as a whole, establishes that the claimant or the claimant's predecessor in interest held title of record immediately prior to the tax-default sale.

Id. at 130.

The county argues, among other things, that the petition fails because it does not allege any facts to show that petitioner is a party of interest entitled to claim excess proceeds from the tax sale.  See Mot. at 6:13 et seq.  Petitioner argues that the petition adequately alleges facts evidencing Stonecrest’s status as a party of interest, specifically as a person with title of record.  See Opp. at 4:9 et seq. (specific allegations cited by Stonecrest as sufficient).  The county has the more persuasive argument.

At bar, there is a significant defect that appears on the face of the amended pleading.  There are no facts alleged that establish that petitioner/claimant held title of record immediately prior to the tax-default sale.  Petitioner, of course, alleges that heirs (i.e., the children of John Robinson) to decedent William Robinson assigned their interests to petitioner via a contract and certain assignments.  See Petition ¶ 10.e.  Those documents, however, make clear that the heirs did not have marketable title to the property, that petitioner was only acquiring a potential future interest in the property, and that all parties recognized that petitioner could only obtain marketable title to the property once decedent’s estate was probated.  See Petition, Ex. A (and Exs. 1-3 attached thereto).  There are no allegations in the petition to suggest that the condition precedent in that contract was satisfied.  There are no allegations that petitioner obtained title prior to the tax-default sale or that the heirs obtained title to the property prior to the tax-default sale.  In order to allege that one is a person with title of record, as noted previously, there must be allegations that, as a whole, will establish that the claimant or the claimant’s predecessor in interest “held title of record immediately prior to the tax-default sale.”  Carloss, 242 Cal.App.4th at 130. “Title is generally understood to denote ownership or ‘the legal right to control and dispose of property.’ ” Ibid. at 127.  Here, there are insufficient allegations that either petitioner or petitioner’s predecessor in interest—the heirs—owned the property, or had a legal right to control or dispose of the property prior to the tax-default sale.  There is no suggestion that the property was probated prior to the tax-default sale.  Moreover, there is no allegation that any other potential lawful procedure for collection or transfer of real property was initiated under the Probate Code prior to the tax-default sale.  A demurrer on this ground, thus, is well founded.

In addition, Revenue and Taxation Code section 4675(c), provides: 

Any person or entity who in any way acts on behalf of, or in place of, any party of interest with respect to filing a claim for any excess proceeds shall submit proof with the claim that the amount and source of excess proceeds have been disclosed to the party of interest and that the party of interest has been advised of their right to file a claim for the excess proceeds on their own behalf directly with the county at no cost.

At bar, petitioner alleges that that the heirs assigned their interests in the subject property to petitioner.  Petitioner, thus, claims to be acting “in place of” the heirs as a party of interest with respect to filing a claim for excess proceeds.  Petitioner has failed to allege, however, that it has complied with the requirements of subsection (c), i.e., that it submitted proof with its claim that the amount and source of excess proceeds have been disclosed to the heirs and that the heirs have been advised of their right to file a claim for the excess proceeds on their own behalf directly with the county at no cost.

A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint states a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable probability the defect can be cured by amendment.  See Seidler v. Municipal Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1233.

Petitioner has been afforded a previous opportunity to amend its petition and has failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the defects noted can be cured by amendment.   Leave to amend is denied. 

4.   CU0001683    County of Nevada vs. Michael James Taylor

The February 23, 2025, demurrer to the cross-complaint by the County of Nevada is removed from calendar without prejudice.  The court is in receipt of an apparent notice of stay from the bankruptcy court.  It appears, however, that the bankruptcy filing may be incomplete and the case potentially subject to dismissal.    The court continues the case management conference (CMC) to May 19, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.  The parties shall update the court on the status of the bankruptcy in their CMC statements prior thereto.  Should this case proceed, the county may re-notice its motion for hearing.

---

March 14, 2025 Civil Tentative Rulings

1. CU0000284    Tod DuBois v. Scott Fetty, et al.

No appearances are required.  At the request of the parties, the following motions are continued until May 2, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6 (the next available hearing date): plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to substitute the name of Defendant Rollins Lakeside Resort to Defendant Lake Life Resort, LLC, plaintiff’s motion for injunction directed at defendant Lake Life Resort, LLC, and plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.  

2. CU0000410    Taylor Strunk v. Stagecoach Motel, et al.

Defendants’ October 1, 2024, motion for monetary sanctions is granted; the motion for terminating sanctions is denied.

 Request for Judicial Notice: 

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted in its entirety. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(e) provides: 

If a party fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories,  

the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an  

issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction,  

the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with  

Section 2023.010).  

 Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(i) provides: 

Except as provided in subdivision (j), if a party fails to obey an order compelling further response, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of, or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). 

Monetary and terminating sanctions may also be imposed against a party who misuses the discovery process as defined by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030: 

• Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.  

• Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery.  

• Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.  

• Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney      in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning    discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a             declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made. 

The imposition of a terminating sanction is typically not to be resorted to by the court as a first measure.  See, e.g., Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1292 (terminating sanctions are justified by persistent and willful non-compliance in discovery]) see also Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1163 (repeated failure to respond combined with non-compliance with court order justifies imposition of terminating sanctions); McGinty v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 204, 210 (extreme sanctions are disfavored).   

 In evaluating the propriety of terminating sanctions, often described as the sanction of last resort, it has been held that “dismissal is a proper sanction to punish the failure to comply with a rule or an order only if the court's authority cannot be vindicated through the imposition of a less severe alternative.”  Rail Services of America v. State Compensation Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal App 4^th 323, 331; see  Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 572-573 (trial court “erred in issuing terminating sanctions as the initial remedial measure without first attempting to compel compliance with its discovery orders by using lesser sanctions or by imposing evidentiary or issue sanctions”). 

 Moreover, where a motion to compel has been previously granted, “the sanction should not operate in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been completely favorable to his cause.”  Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793. 

 In the instant action, the court finds that plaintiff’s conduct warrants the imposition of monetary sanctions.  There is no substantial justification as to why defendants were forced to incur the time and expenses of two motions before plaintiffs finally served verified responses without objections.   

Before the motions, plaintiffs failed to respond to discovery, served objections after defendants granted multiple extensions of time to serve responses, failed to meet and confer to attempt informal discovery dispute resolution, and failed to comply with the court’s order to serve discovery and pay monetary sanctions.   

In the October 14, 2024, declaration, plaintiffs’ attorney informed the court that they lost contact with their clients between March and May 2024 but then indicated that contact was resumed in October 2024.  As noted by defendants’ attorney, it is unclear from the declaration whether there was contact between May and October 2024 and there is no explanation as to the lack of contact when plaintiffs have resided at the same address for more than five years.  In any event, failure on the part of clients to maintain contact with their counsel or vice versa does not constitute appropriate justification for the discovery lapses here.   

Plaintiffs served the responses to defendants’ discovery requests on or about November 5, 2024.  However, the circumstances set forth in the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion and declaration of plaintiffs’ attorney do not show circumstances that would make the imposition of monetary sanctions unjust.  Therefore, plaintiffs and their attorneys are ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $1,740.50 in connection with the instant motion.  The court confirms its previous order of sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,120.00.  All sanctions must be paid within 30 days.     

3. CU0001651    Joseph Sacks vs. Navy Federal Credit Union

   On the court’s motion, defendant’s demurrer is continued for hearing until April 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6. 

Plaintiff alleges Navy Federal violated section 1026.38 of Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) by failing to disclose “accurate and complete financial information in the Closing Disclosure,” which resulted in “significant financial harm, including increased mortgage payments and insurance costs.” Comp. ¶¶ 38, 39. 

Each party shall provide briefing of no more than three pages by no later than March 28, 2025 as to the following:  (1) What are the elements of a cause of action for violation of  TILA in general? (2) What are the elements of a cause of action for violation of section 1026.38 in particular? 

4. CU0001760    In the Matter of County of Nevada
    

The unopposed petition of the County of Nevada for an order to abate substandard building and appoint Richardson C. Griswold as receiver is granted as prayed except as noted herein.

Health and Safety Code section 17890.7 authorizes the court to appoint a receiver to oversee the rehabilitation of properties deemed to be substandard if the property owner fails to comply with an order or notice issued by a local agency pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.6 after a reasonable time. 

In the instant action, petitioner has made a sufficient showing that the subject property is a danger to occupants and the surrounding community.  Respondent was given more than a reasonable amount of time (13 years to be exact) to rehabilitate the subject property with no response.

A prevailing party is generally entitled to recover all costs of enforcement relating to the property, including its attorney fees, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 17980.7. The court denies without prejudice petitioner’s request that it presently be deemed the prevailing party entitled to recovery of costs of enforcement and attorney fees.  Petitioner may file an appropriate noticed motion at the conclusion of the case if it seeks adjudication of the same.

5. CU20-084697 Barbara Miller vs. Pamela Gorman_­

Plaintiff’s November 15, 2024, motion for new trial is denied. 

There can be only one final judgment, and this judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties.  See Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 304, citing Code Civ. Proc. § 577.  Where there is an amended judgment, the nature and effect of the amended judgment (i.e., whether it or the original is the final judgment) depends on whether the amendment substantially changes the judgment.  See Ellis v. Ellis (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 837, 842.  Jurisdictional deadlines run from the actual final judgment.  Ibid.  Generally, where an amended judgment merely adds costs, attorney fees, and interest, the original judgment is not substantially changed, such that the original judgment is the final judgment.  See Torres v. City of San Diego (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 214, 222.
There were two judgments entered in this case. The judgment entered on May 24, 2024, fully adjudicated all rights of the parties—it provided that plaintiff received a jury verdict award of $7,500, and defendant was entitled to costs, subject to a future determination, pursuant to a Section 998 offer.  The judgment entered on November 4, 2024, simply added defendant’s costs. The subsequent judgment did not substantially modify the original judgment. The final judgment for purposes of the motion for a new trial, thus, was the original judgment entered on May 24, 2024.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 659 provides, in relevant part: 

 (a) The party intending to move for a new trial shall file with the clerk and serve upon each adverse party a notice of their intention to move for a new trial, … , either: 

(1) After the decision is rendered and before the entry of judgment. 

(2) Within 15 days of the date of serving notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5, or service upon them by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is earliest; ….

(Italics added). 

 Code of Civil Procedure section 660(c) provides, in relevant part: 

 [T]he power of the court to rule on a motion for a new trial shall expire 75 days after the 

mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5 or 75 days after service on the moving party by any party  

of written notice of entry of judgment, whichever is earlier, or if that notice  

has not been given, 75 days after the filing of the first notice of intention to  

move for a new trial. If the motion is not determined within the 75-day period,  

or within that period as extended, the effect shall be a denial of the motion without further order of the court.  

(Italics added). 

These deadlines are jurisdictional.  Smith v. Super. Ct. (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 434, 436; Maroney v. Iacobsohn (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 473, 481–483; Dodge v. Super. Ct. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 513, 518.   “[A]n order granting a new trial is in excess of jurisdiction and void if, for example, it is made ... upon a notice of intention that is filed … too late …, or if the court purports to grant the motion after expiration of the statutory time for ruling.”  Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 337 (citations omitted).  

At bar, the final judgment was entered on May 24, 2024.  Defendant served plaintiff notice of entry of that judgment on May 30, 2024.  Plaintiff’s deadline to serve and file her intent to move for new trial was 15 days later, i.e., on June 14, 2024.  Plaintiff did not file her intent to move for new trial until November 5, 2024.  Thus, the notice of intention was untimely.  In addition, the court’s deadline to rule on such a motion was 75 days later on August 13, 2024. The court has not yet ruled on the motion and could not do so after expiration of the statutory time for ruling.

In the alternative or in addition, assuming, arguendo, the second November 4, 2024, judgment was the final judgment, and plaintiff timely file her notice of intention on November 5, 2024, the court’s 75-day deadline to rule would have been January 21, 2025.  Here again, the court has not yet ruled on the motion and could not do so after expiration of the statutory time for ruling.

The court lacks jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s motion for new trial.  The motion is denied.

6.  CU0001052     Frances Cesak v. Lake Wildwood Association
 

Defendant Lake Wildwood Association (LWA)’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Standard of Review

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.  In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings to be addressed; (2) determine whether moving party showed facts justifying a judgment in movant's favor; and (3) determine whether the opposing party demonstrated the existence of a triable, material issue of fact. See Wellsfry v. Ocean Colony Partners, LLC (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1075, 1084; Sun v. City of Oakland (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1182-83; McGarry v. Sax (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 983, 994; Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 289, 294.

Factual Background

While plaintiff was driving her golf cart on defendant LWA premises, the golf cart frame caught on an unmarked tree stump and plaintiff’s golf cart came to an abrupt stop. Plaintiff was forcefully ejected from the cart and thrown through the air causing serious injuries.

There are two causes of action set forth in the complaint: general negligence and premises liability. 

Assumption of the Risk Doctrine

The law applicable to the instant dispute is well summarized in Wellsfry v. Ocean Colony Partners, LLC (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1075:

“[P]articipation in an active sport is governed by primary assumption of risk, and a defendant owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff against risks inherent in the sport.” [Citation].  “When the risks are inherent, the defendant does not have a ‘duty to protect the plaintiff from those risks [citation] or to take steps to reduce those risks.’ ” [Citation]. Nonetheless, the courts have held that “[i]n any case in which the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies,” the owners and operators of sports venues owe participants “a duty ‘not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity.’ [Citation.] [And,] owners and operators of sports venues ... have an additional duty to undertake reasonable steps or measures to protect their customers’ ... safety—if they can do so without altering the nature of the sport ... .” [Citation].

Id. at 1085–1086 (citations and parentheticals omitted; italics added).

Our Supreme Court has held that the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to golf played on an outdoor course. [Citation].  The open question is whether the inherent risk of playing golf on an outdoor course includes risks associated with the topographical features of the course. We find it does.

Golf is a sport whose object is for players to use special clubs to hit a small ball over lengthy distances and ultimately into a hole in the ground surface. When golf is played outdoors, it is common knowledge that the game does not use a “standardized playing area,” but rather takes place on the varied natural terrain of the ground surface of the course. Because each golf course is unique, golfers can reasonably expect to encounter myriad variations in the ground surface and obstacles as they traverse a golf course. [Citation]. As explained by OCP's Director of Maintenance and Superintendent Daniel Miller, “[t]he type of grass used, such as Bermuda, Bentgrass, Zoysia, Poa Annua, or Ryegrass, the presence or absence of trees, bushes, roots, holes, protuberances, furrows, gouges, rocks, acorns, seeds, and other conditions of the terrain, can and regularly do affect the golfer's experience, both in terms of how the ball interacts with the terrain and in the color, density, and the overall appearance of the terrain and the feel and atmosphere of the course.” Hence, the ground surface of a golf course “establishes a significant portion of the challenge and atmosphere of golf and constitutes the interface between the golfer ... and nature that is part of the gestalt of golf.”

We therefore conclude one who plays golf on an outdoor course assumes those risks associated with the topographical features of the course.

Id. at 1086 (citations and parentheticals omitted).

At bar, defendant asserts that “the common law doctrine of assumption of risk negates the liability of a defendant to a plaintiff engaged in playing golf on defendant’s property.” Defendant, however, has failed to meet its initial burden of showing that (1) its maintenance of the golf course had not increased the risk of injury beyond that inherent in the risk of playing golf, and (2) it had not failed to take reasonable steps to minimize the risk of injury that would not have altered the fundamental nature of the sport. Compare with id. at 1089.  In the alternative, there are material disputed issues of fact related to the same.  See Plaintiff’s Additional Material Facts Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10.

Express Release of Liability

California case law provides that under the doctrine of express assumption of risk, a signed waiver of liability may release liability for negligence. See, e.g., City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747, 777 (2007).

Plaintiff had been a member of the Wildwood mutual benefit association for at least 10 years prior to her accident on July 28, 2022. In June of 2022, she signed an annual Public Unlimited Golf Package Agreement (“PUP”). The PUP Plaintiff signed included a release of liability against Wildwood for negligence, as well as a statement that Plaintiff assumed the risk of personal injury in return for the privilege of using Wildwood’s facilities.

Section 8 of the PUP provides as follows:

Assumption of Risk: “In consideration for the privilege of using LWA [“Wildwood”] facilities, each person entering upon or using LWA facilities agrees: (a) To accept all risks associated with the use of LWA facilities and to release LWA from and indemnify and defend LWA against any and all claims arising out of or in any way connected with such use of LWA facilities, except to the extent directly resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the LWA or its employees…”

“With respect to the question of express waiver, the legal issue is not whether the particular risk of injury appellant suffered is inherent in the recreational activity to which the Release applies [citations], but simply the scope of the Release.” Hass v. RhodyCo Productions (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 11, 27 (citation and quotation omitted).  In the case at bar “reading the [release in question] as a whole—as would an ordinary person untrained in the law—[this court is] convinced it expresses [plaintiff’s] intent to assume all risks arising from [her use of LWA facilities and its golf course], including any risks related to [defendant’s] negligence.” Ibid. 

Of note, “[e]ven if [a] Release [is] sufficient to block a claim for ordinary negligence …it is insufficient, as a matter of public policy, to preclude liability for gross negligence.”   Id. at 31. 

“[I]t cannot be said that the Complaint [herein]—which does not even mention the [release in question]—anticipated the [r]elease defense or raised gross negligence as a material issue which [defendant] was required to refute in order to succeed on summary judgment.”  Id. at 33.  “Instead, [defendant] met its initial burden by producing evidence of the existence of the [release in question] and its execution by [plaintiff]. The burden then shifted to the [plaintiff] to raise a triable issue of material fact as to gross negligence.”  Ibid. 

In its opposition, plaintiff does not argue that defendant was grossly negligent and does not point the court to any facts that she believes create a material dispute as to the same.  On this record, thus, defendant is entitled to summary judgment based on plaintiff’s express assumption of the risk.Defendant’s motion is granted.

These are the Court’s tentative rulings.  In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309 by 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing.  If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court.  Any argument is limited to five (5) minutes per party, unless the Court determines additional argument time is needed.  See California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Personal appearances are permitted.  You may also appear via video by arranging a remote appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument.

Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not be able to provide court reporters for probate or civil law and motion hearings and does not provide court reporters for case management conferences.  Any litigant who wants a record of a law and motion matter or a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense.  See Local Rule 10.00.3 B.

FOR ALL LAW AND MOTION MATTERS, UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED, THE PREVAILING PARTY SHALL SUBMIT A FORMAL ORDER SETTING OUT VERBATIM THE TENTATIVE RULING ANNOUNCED HEREIN (OR THE ORDER OF THE COURT FOLLOWING ORAL ARGUMENT SHOULD IT DIFFER FROM THE TENTATIVE RULING) IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT 3.1312 AND SHALL, THEREAFTER, PREPARE, FILE AND SERVE NOTICE OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF COURT.

---

April 25, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. P07-14542       In the Matter of Michael A. Powers, et al.
   No appearances are required.  The court continues this case to June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The 16th account and report from trustee shall be filed no later than May 23, 2025.  Trustee shall provide notice of the continued hearing.
    
2. P19-16469       In the Matter of Roland Vieira
   No appearances are required.  The court continues this case to June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court has not received the investigation review report.  The court investigator shall file the investigation review report no later than June 6, 2025.  The clerk shall provide notice to the court investigator. 

3. PR0000342     In the Matter of the Estate of Luther Taylor
   No appearances are required.  The petition for an order confirming expenses of administration and application of remaining proceeds from sale in regard to priority of debts is granted as set forth in the amended prayer for relief, item 2.  See Petitioner’s Reply at 9:11-14.  The court finds good cause for the order under applicable law and is not persuaded by any of the arguments to the contrary by Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC.

4. PR0000469     In the Matter of Sandra Eileen Gilbert
   No appearances are required.  The first and final report of status of administration and petition for settlement of estate, approval of account, allowance of statutory compensation and final distribution is granted as prayed.
    
5. PR0000478     Conservatorship of Mark. F. Miller
   No appearances are required.  The court has not received the investigation review report.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter for receipt of the report to June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court investigator shall file the investigation review report no later than June 6, 2025.  The clerk shall provide notice to the court investigator. 
    
6. PR0000484     Conservatorship of Raymond Poquette
   No appearances are required.  The petitioner for attorney fees is granted as prayed.
    
7. PR0000493     In the Matter of Walter T. Branson
   No appearances are required.  The motion by counsel Haas to be relieved from representing Ms. Branson is granted effective filing of a proof of service on the client.

8. PR0000664     In the Matter of the Dennis W. Babson 2000 Trust
   No appearances are required.  A request for dismissal with prejudice has been entered as requested. 
    
9. PR0000665     In the Matter of Faith and Hope Cline
   No appearances are required.  The court has not received the investigation report.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter for receipt of the report to June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The clerk shall provide notice to the court investigator. 
    
10. PR0000668     In the Matter of Sage Marie Davis Da Rosa
    Appearances are required.  The petition is granted in part as follows:  The 401 K proceeds totaling $70,000 shall be placed in a beneficiary account within 5 court days and proof of the same filed within 10 court days.  The request for reimbursement is granted.  The request for prospective support is denied.  No good cause has been demonstrated for support for an indefinite period in indeterminate amounts.  The court is favorably inclined to authorize investment of funds in a 529 plan so long as it is advised of a reasonable, determinate amount. 
11. PR0000725     In the Matter of Deborah Pyle
    No appearances are required.  The petition is granted as prayed.
     
12. PR0000728     In the Matter of John Bruce Bianchi
    No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the petition to administer estate is continued to June 27, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  No original will was filed with the court as required.  See Local Rule 8.06.  Additionally, it is unclear why the named executors in the will are unavailable to administer the estate.  Lastly, bond seemingly is not waived under the will unless one of the named executors is appointed.  Petitioner shall submit a supplemental declaration addressing these issues no later than 10 court days prior to the next hearing. 

13. PR0000733     In the Matter of Lou J. Schiavone
    Appearances are not required.  The court grants the unopposed petition to compel information and accounting by trustee in part, namely, requests for relief 1.c. (assets), 1.d. (compensation) and 2 (accounting).  The accounting and information requested shall be filed and served no later than June 26, 2025.  A hearing regarding the same is set for July 25, 2025.  The court denies, without prejudice, requests 1.a. (financial records) and 1.b. (real property records).  The moving party shall give notice.
     
14. PR0000734     Estate of Virginia Bauch
    No appearances are required.  The petition is granted as prayed.
     
15. PR0000735     In the Matter of Esther L. Morales
    No appearances are required.  The trustee’s petition for termination is granted as prayed.
     
16. PR0000737     In the Matter of Benny Lee Riding
    No appearances are required.  The petition is granted as prayed.

     

April 18, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. PR0000614     In the Matter of Nyialong Steve Yang
   No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025.  On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. 

   No appearances are required on April 22, 2025.  The amended petition to administer the estate of Nyialong Steve Yang is granted as prayed.

2. PR0000643     In the Matter of Thomas C. Norton           
   No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025.  On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. 

   No appearances are required on April 22, 2025.  The petition for the allowance of court appointed attorney fees and to be relieved as counsel are granted as prayed.

3. PR0000736     In the Matter of Rollin Wayne Shively
   No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025.  On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. 

   No appearances are required on April 22, 2025.  The court continues this matter to May 30, 2025, to permit the petitioner additional time to provide notice to Rhonda Ceritelli. Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued date.

April 11, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. P17-16181      In the Matter of Andrew Joseph Graybill
   Appearances are required.  Conservator shall clarify when he intends to return to Nevada County, and why a change of venue to Yuba County would not be in the best interest of the conservatee.
    
2. P22-16995      In the Matter of Phyllis Graham
   No appearances are required.  On the Court’s motion, the review hearing is continued to May 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  An order to show cause hearing is set for the same date and time for Conservators Shelley Gutierrez and Phillip Graham to show cause for their failure to file a final accounting as ordered by the court on February 28, 2025.
    
3. P94-11921      In the Matter of Korie Alison Rekers, et al.
   No appearances are required.  The accounting and requested fees are approved as prayed.
    
4. PR0000572     In the Matter of Arthur Carl Bern
   No appearances are required.  The petition for settlement of first and final account and final distribution and allowance of statutory compensation to attorney is granted as prayed.
    
5. PR0000580     In the Matter of Christopher Levas
   No appearances are required.  The court has received the request for dismissal and the proposed order approving trustee’s first account.  The court will approve the order based on the settlement of the parties.
    
6. PR0000634     Estate of Alan Bernard
   No appearances are required.  Petitioner has submitted an amended proof of service but it does not indicate that notice of the continued date was provided.  Additionally, a corrected or new DE-120 was not filed.  As such, the court continues this matter to May 30, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Petitioner shall ensure the petition, proposed order and notice of hearing are served on all required parties and shall submit a proof of service (DE-120) indicating the same. Petitioner is referred to the Nevada County Superior Court’s Self-Help Center for information if needed.
    
7. PR0000655     In the Matter of Willah Brave Barlow Dunwody
   Appearances are required.  Counsel James shall show cause for her failure to appear on February 28, 2025.  Additionally, the court still needs an update on the status of the final distribution from Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STPB11927 as well as proof that a court-blocked blocked account has been opened.
    
8. PR0000667     In the Matter of Cynthia E. Dell
   Appearances are required.  The parties shall meet, confer, and be prepared to select a hearing date on the petition for instructions.  Additionally, the parties shall advise if this matter is related to PR0000716 - In the Matter of William J. Hemby.
    
9. PR0000690     In the Matter of Fred G. Dean-Turner
   No appearances are required.  The court on its own motion continues this matter to May 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court appoints Valerie Logsdon Esq., to represent proposed conservatee.  The clerk shall provide notice to Ms. Logsdon.

10. PR0000716     In the Matter of William J. Hemby
    Appearances are required.  The court notes that a copy of the will has not been filed which is required by Local Rule 8.06.  Moreover, it is unclear whether the will is self-proving or whether there is proof of a subscribing witness.  Additionally, petitioner shall advise if this matter is related to PR0000667- In the Matter of Cynthia E. Dell.  The petition will be continued for hearing to another date to be announced. 
     
11. PR0000729     In the Matter of Elberta Jean Cain
    No appearances are required.  The petition to administer the estate is granted as prayed.
     
12. PR0000732     In the Matter of Virginia Logan Umstead-Jones
    No appearances are required.  The petition to administer the estate is granted as prayed.
     

---

April 4, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. P09-14943       In the Matter of SEAN KRULISKY
   Appearances are required.  On January 31, 2025, conservators were ordered to file a written update with respect to the conservatorship by March 28, 2025.  No update has been filed with the court.  The conservators shall explain their failure to follow the court’s prior order, as well as whether the conservatorship will continue, transfer to Missouri or terminate.
    
2. P11-15177       In the Matter of PHILLIP T KRULISKY
   Appearances are required.  On January 31, 2025, conservators were ordered to file a written update with respect to the conservatorship by March 28, 2025.  No update has been filed with the court.  The conservators shall explain their failure to follow the court’s prior order, as well as whether the conservatorship will continue or terminate.
    
3. P15-15866       In the Matter of CHRISTIAN VIXIE
   No appearances are required. The conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted. The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next biennial review is set for February 12, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.
    
4. PR0000195     In the Matter of ALEKSEI D. DIX
   No appearances are required. The conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted. The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next biennial review is set for April 2, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this annual review is waived.
    
5. PR0000425     Estate of HANS J. LILLER
   No appearances are required.  The petition for final distribution is granted as prayed.
    
6. PR0000596     In the Matter of GABRIEL KULP
   No appearances are required.  The petition for instructions is granted as prayed. 
    
7. PR0000672     In the Matter of EARLENE TANKERSLEY
   Appearances are required.  The parties shall be prepared to select dates for hearing on the competing petitions to administer the estate of Earlene Tankersley.  Ms. Bond shall immediately give notice to the Attorney General of her petition to administer as it appears to involve a devise for charitable purposes.  See Probate Code section 8111.  The court notes an error in the February 7, 2025 minutes, which shall be corrected.  The court deferred taking action on Ms. Massey’s petition for letters of administration filed on February 7, 2025.  Ms. Massey shall confirm whether that petition has been withdrawn in light of the February 19, 2025, petition by Ms. Bond.
    
8. PR0000688     In the Matter of JAMES D. BRUMM
   Appearances are required.  The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of mediation and selection of hearing date(s) if necessary.
    
9. PR0000719     In the Matter of JEFFREY STEPHENSON
   No appearances are required.  The court is favorably inclined to grant the petition to appoint successor conservator.  However, the court is not in receipt of the court investigator’s report.  The court continues this matter to May 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for receipt of report.  The clerk shall provide notice to Quest Investigative Services. 
    
10. PR0000721     In the Matter of BRISAN MICHAEL LEE BANKS
    No appearances are required.  The petition to administer estate is granted as prayed.
     
11. PR0000724     In the Matter of CARTER E. REDDING, JR.
    No appearances are required.  The petition to administer estate is granted as prayed.
     
12. PR0000726     In the Matter of RICHARD SAMUEL BARTHOLOMEW
    Appearances are required.  There are apparently competing petitions to administer.  The court is not in receipt of petitioner Lipski-Mosher’s notice or proof of service (DE-121), proof of publication, or signed duties and liabilities (DE-147).  As such, it appears that this petition is incomplete.  The parties shall update the court on the current status of their requested petitions and be prepared to set a hearing. 

---

March 28, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. P17-16154      In the Matter of Dawn Delange
   Appearances are required by conservators and counsel for conservatee.  The court has reviewed the March 14, 2025, report of counsel for the conservatee including the report that conservatee has stabilized.  The conservatorship of the person shall continue. The court, on its own motion, advances biennial review previously set for January 8, 2027, to January 5, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  Conservators and/or counsel for conservatee shall immediately advise the court if conservatee’s condition deteriorates and further powers are necessary to manage the same.  A copy of the minutes shall be served on the court investigator, conservator and counsel for conservatee.
    
2. P17-16234      In the Matter of Joseph Ruscica
   No appearances are required. The conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted.  The conservators are acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next biennial review is set for February 5, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court investigation fee for this biennial review is waived.

3. P19-16493      In the Matter of Simon Cruickshank, et al.
   No appearances are required.  The court approves the seventh accounting and report of the Thelma P. Cruikshank Revocable Trust and all acts of Simon Cruikshank as trustee.

4. P21-16907      In the Matter of Susan E. Walima
   No appearances are required. The conservatorship of the person shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted.  The conservators are acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment. The next biennial review is set for February 5, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  It appears that the conservatee’s estate has sufficient assets for purposes of the court investigator assessment, which shall be paid by the estate forthwith.  A proposed order shall be submitted by the investigator.

5. PR0000202     In the Matter of Catherine Mendenhall
   No appearances are required.  The petition for final distribution on approval of account and for payment of administrator and attorney fees is granted as prayed.
    
6. PR0000326     In the Matter of Jamie Dickerson
   No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report for purposes of annual review. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to May 30, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for receipt of the report.  The court notes that an annual accounting is overdue.  Conservator Heidi Conservator shall file the same, with appropriate notice and service, within 30 days, for hearing on May 30, 2025.  A copy of the minutes shall be served on conservator Heidi Dickerson and the court investigator. 
    
7. PR0000426     In the Matter of Renee S. Marshall
   No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report for purposes of annual review. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to June 6, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for receipt of the report.  The court notes that an annual accounting is overdue.  Conservator Steven Marshall shall file the same, with appropriate notice and service, within 30 days, for hearing on June 6, 2025.  A copy of the minutes shall be served on conservator Steven Marshall and the court investigator. 
    
8. PR0000439     Estate of Kathleen Alexander

Appearances are required.  All powers of trustee Lynn Anthony are suspended except as noted herein.  Trustee Anthony is specifically prohibited from taking any action in connection with the disposition of any trust asset or liability.  Trustee Anthony shall file and serve the accounting submitted as part of her March 24, 2025, declaration on all required parties along with a notice of hearing.  A hearing is now calendared for May 1, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.  Petitioner Worth shall file her position regarding the accounting no later than 10 court days prior to the hearing. The February 7, 2025, order to show cause regarding removal of trustee Anthony is continued to May 1, 2025.  Trustee Anthony shall file her response to the specific contentions of petitioner Worth in Worth’s March 11, 2024 response to order to show cause no later than 10 court days prior to the hearing. 

9. PR0000614     In the Matter of Nyialong Steve Yang
   No appearances are required.  The court on its own motion continues this matter to April 18, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Petitioner shall file a signed acknowledgment of duties (DE-147) prior to the continued court date.
    
10. PR0000638     In the Matter of William Aguilar
    No appearances are required.  The court continues this matter to May 23, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to provide the parties additional time to engage in mediation. The parties are ordered to provide a joint status report regarding mediation no later than one week before the next hearing date.
     
11. PR0000681     In the Matter of Patricia Melia Paddock
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the petition to administer estate to April 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court notes that the proof of service (DE-121) has not been completed.  If service was previously effectuated, petitioner shall file proof of the same and give notice of the continued hearing date to all parties.  Otherwise, petitioner shall file and serve notice of the hearing for the new date.
     
12.  PR0000722    Estate of Anthony B. Rohl
    No appearances are required.  The petition to administer estate is granted as prayed.  Letters shall issue.
     

    ---

March 21, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

1. CU0001798    Sheldon Lynn Thompson v. Christina Joy Callahan
   No appearances are required.  This matter was improvidently set for hearing on March 21, 2025.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or request for dismissal not later than one week before the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
    
2. P11-15182      In the Matter of Jacquelyn Munoz
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter to May 9, 2025.  Conservator shall serve petition, and provide proof of the same, on all parties referenced in the petition pursuant to Prob. Code sections 2352 and 1822.
    
3. P12-15334      In the Matter of Helen Powell
   No appearances are required.  The court has not received a status report from the court investigator or the conservator.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter to May 9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, for receipt of a report from both the investigator and conservator.  A copy of the March 21, 2025 minutes as well as the court’s previous September 20, 2024 minutes shall be provided to the court investigator and conservator. 

4. P15-15875      In the Matter of Sharon Beatty
   Appearances are required.  The court has reviewed the March 12, 2025 status report of Ms. Greeninger.  The parties shall update the court on the status of settlement.  In the event no settlement has been reached, parties shall be prepared to inform the court on the legal issues involving the contested income tax return dispute.
    
5. P18-16383      In the Matter of Margaret Vinther Copeland Special Needs Trust, et al.
   No appearances are required.  The petition for settlement of first account/report of trustee is granted as prayed.  Additionally, the request to exempt future accountings is granted pursuant to Prob. Code section 2628.
    
6. P21-16866      In the Matter of Wilhelm Disselhoff
   No appearances are required.  The court is in receipt of the notice of death of the conservatee.  On its own motion, the court continues the review hearing to May 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Conservator is directed to file and serve a final accounting for hearing on the same date.
    
7. PR0000069     In the Matter of Tracy Freeman
   On the court’s motion, this matter is continued until 10:00 a.m., as part of the regular law and motion calendar.

Nicole Medina and Mitchell Freeman’s unopposed January 28, 2025, motion to intervene in the probate action (PR0000069) is granted.  These individuals claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and they are so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede their ability to protect that interest.  See Code of Civil Procedure section 387(d)(1).      

Medina and Freeman’s January 28, 2025, motion to expunge lis pendens is granted.

“A lis pendens is a recorded document giving constructive notice that an action has been filed affecting title to or right to possession of the real property described in the notice.” Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647. 

“The Supreme Court outlined the law governing the statutory scheme pertaining to the recording of a lis pendens and the procedure applicable to expunging an improperly recorded notice in Kirkeby v. Superior Court of Orange County (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647[.]”  Campbell v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 904, 911.

“A lis pendens may be filed by any party in an action who asserts a ‘real property claim.’ Code of Civ. Proc. § 405.20.  Section 405.4 defines a ‘ “Real property claim” ’ as ‘the cause or causes of action in a pleading which would, if meritorious, affect ... title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property....’ ‘If the pleading filed by the claimant does not properly plead a real property claim, the lis pendens must be expunged upon motion under CCP 405.31.’

“Section 405.30 allows the property owner to remove an improperly recorded lis pendens by bringing a motion to expunge. There are several statutory bases for expungement of a lis pendens, including [that the] claimant's pleadings, on which the lis pendens is based, do not contain a real property claim. See § 405.31.  Unlike most other motions, when a motion to expunge is brought, the burden is on the party opposing the motion to show the existence of a real property claim. See § 405.30.”

Id. at 911 (citation, footnotes, quotations and parentheses omitted).

“The Kirkeby court also discussed the law governing a trial court's determination of a motion to expunge under section 405.31 and the standard of review applicable on appeal[.]”  Ibid.

“Section 405.31 provides: ‘In proceedings under this chapter, the court shall order the notice expunged if the court finds that the pleading on which the notice is based does not contain a real property claim.’ In making this determination, the court must engage in a demurrer-like analysis. ‘Rather than analyzing whether the pleading states any claim at all, as on a general demurrer, the court must undertake the more limited analysis of whether the pleading states a real property claim.’  Review ‘involves only a review of the adequacy of the pleading and normally should not involve evidence from either side, other than possibly that which may be judicially noticed as on a demurrer.’  Therefore, review of an expungement order under section 405.31 is limited to whether a real property claim has been properly pled by the claimant. ”

Ibid.  (citations omitted).

Here, the underlying petition does not contain a real property claim.  In summary, the operative petition alleges as follows:

This Petition arises from Nicole [Medina]'s bad-faith and unlawful distribution to herself and to her brother Mitchell [Freeman] an aggregate $1.45 million from their parents' estates without notice or court approval. eCapital had filed two Creditor's Claims against their parents' estates – the respective estates of Tracy Freeman ("Tracy Estate") and David Freeman ("David Estate") (collectively, the "Freeman Estates") relating to a spousal community debt that Tracy incurred during her life when she defaulted under her personal guaranty of the Loan (defined below) from eCapital to Tracy's business Volume Snacks, Inc. ("Volume Snacks"). Rather than restore the $1.45 million pending the resolution of eCapital's Creditor's Claims, Nicole and Mitchell spent the money so distributed, and Nicole (then serving as Personal Representative of the David Estate) baselessly rejected the Creditor's Claim filed in the David Estate. The looting, distribution, and expenditure of $1.45 million was intended as a blatant, bad-faith scheme to hinder and delay eCapital's collection of its Creditor's Claims.

12/5/24 Pet. ¶ 1.

As a result of this alleged misconduct, petitioner requests the court, among other things, for an order:

(1) requiring Nicole and Mitchell to return $1.45 million to the Tracy Estate (or alternatively, the David Estate) under Probate Code section 850, (2) for injunctive relief under Probate Code section 856 prohibiting Nicole and Mitchell from transferring, selling, or encumbering any real or personal property that they have acquired, obtained, or improved with the $1.45 million they received from the Freeman Estates. 

Ibid. 

Title of Medina and Freeman’s real property is not at issue in the petition.  Rather, the petition alleges that Medina/Freeman received funds unlawfully and seeks to enjoin Medina and Freeman from disposing of any real property they have acquired, obtained or improved with those funds.  “[A] claim that seeks an interest in real property merely for the purpose of securing a money damage judgment does not support the recording of a lis pendens.”  Campbell, 132 Cal.App.4th at 912 (and cases cited therein).  Petitioner’s allegations do not affect title or possession of the real property at issue.  See Urez Corp. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1141, 1149; La Paglia v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1322, 1325, 1327.

To the extent that a result to the contrary would be possible under either Okuda v. Superior Court (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 135, 141 (cited by petitioner) or Coppinger v. Superior Court (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 883, 891, the court finds these cases to be unpersuasive and declines to follow them.  See Campbell, 132 Cal.App.4th at 918–919. (“We agree with Urez and the cases that follow it that to allow a party to record a lis pendens in a case in which the party seeks only “to freeze the real property as a res from which to satisfy a money judgment” …, is not consistent with the history and purpose of the lis pendens statutes and conclude that the Urez line of cases is more consistent with the history and purpose of the lis pendens statutes than are Coppinger and Okuda.”). 

Moreover, Newell v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 728, is readily distinguishable and does not compel a result to the contrary.  See Newell, 107 Cal. App. 5th at 737 (“[I]f [trustee] Rollins fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence [decedent] Arthur's donative transfer to her was not the product of fraud or undue influence, the court may remove Rollins as trustee. The court would have to designate a new trustee of the trust, who would then be entitled to hold title to the Van Nuys property in his or her name as successor trustee. In that event, [the instant] petition would change the name of the titleholder.”)(italics added).

In sum, the lis pendens recorded against the parcels of real property for Medina and Freeman are expunged.

There is a split of authority in the state as to whether a claim that seeks an interest in real property merely for the purpose of securing a money damage judgment supports the recording of a lis pendens. See Campbell v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App.4th at 912 (citing majority and minority positions).  The 1992 amendments to the lis pendens statutes took no position regarding this issue and left it to future judicial development.  Id. at 915-916.  The court finds that petitioner acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion based on a good faith theory supported by existing law, including Okuda, and that it would be unjust to impose an award of attorney’s fees and costs under these circumstances.  The court denies Medina and Freeman’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. 

8. PR0000207     In the Matter of Marcia Bauer
   Appearances are required by Administrator Morgan Rains regarding petitioner Carol Nimick’s petition for a status report regarding administration of the estate and for an order to show cause regarding why a petition for final distribution should not be filed.  Administrator Rains shall be prepared to address questions (a) through (e) of the petition at p. 4, line 24, to p. 5, line, 9.  The administrator shall also address the question of when a petition for final distribution shall be filed. 
    
9. PR0000597     In the Matter of Joshua Christian Chamberlain Special Needs Trust #2
   No appearances are required.  The court has received the request for dismissal filed by petitioner and trustee; the dismissal has been entered as requested. 
    
10. PR0000635     In the Matter of Sharri-Anne Renea Adams
    Appearances are required by counsel for the conservator and conservatee.  The amended petition for appointment of a probate conservator of the person is granted as prayed.  Counsel shall confirm that appropriate orders have been lodged in connection with the amended petition. 
     
11. PR0000659     In the Matter of Ian Fredrick Ayton
    Appearances are not required.  Conservatorship of the person and estate is granted as prayed.  Julie Yates and Janet Mourning shall serve as the conservators.  Letters shall issue.
     
12. PR0000676     In the Matter of Ralph Berger
    No appearances are required.  The petition for an order confirming successor trustee and trust assets is granted in part, namely prayers for relief one through four related to the validity of the trust, its amendments and its trustee. 

The court denies the fifth request for relief requesting a declaration that the subject property, i.e., 2440 S. Hacienda Boulevard, unit 225, Hacienda Heights, California, is subject to the management and control of the trustee. 

 “It is well established that if two specific requirements are met, real property may be made part of a trust's assets without a separate deed transferring property to the trust.”  Ukkestad v. RBS Asset Finance, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 156, 160, citing Estate of Heggstad (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 943, 947–950. 

“The first requirement is that the owner of real property is the settlor creating the trust with himself or herself as the trustee.”  Ibid.  That requirement is satisfied here.  Decedents/settlors Richard and Bertha Berger were owners of the subject property and created a trust naming themselves as co-trustees.  

“Second, because a conveyance of real property is at issue, the other requirement for transferring real property to a trust is compliance with the statute of frauds.”  Ibid.. citing Heggstad, 16 Cal.App.4th at 948.  “Specifically, the statute of frauds in Probate Code section 15206 states: ‘A trust in relation to real property is not valid unless evidenced ...: [¶] (a) By a written instrument signed by the trustee .... [¶] (b) By a written instrument conveying the trust property signed by the settlor .... [¶] (c) By operation of law.’ ” Id. at 161 (italics added).  That requirement is not satisfied here by sufficient, credible evidence.  Neither the trust itself (Ex. L to Petition), the description of Berger Trust Property as part of the trust (Ex. M), nor the assignment of deed of trust (Ex. J) expressly convey or reasonably can be construed to convey the subject property itself to the trust.   “Although [petitioner’s declaration] related the [settlors’ purported beliefs or] intent that [the subject property] was to be [part of] the trust property, the statute of frauds “forbids the creation of an express trust in real property by verbal declaration of the owner.” Osswald v. Anderson (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 812, 818.

 

13. PR0000692     In the Matter of Terry McGowan
    No appearances are required.  The petition for an order approving modification of trust terms under Prob. Code section 15403 is granted as prayed. 
     
14. PR0000710     In the Matter of Miller Ernest Harper
    No appearances are required.  The court notes there is no original will or proof of publication submitted by petitioner.  Petitioner shall file the same prior to next hearing date.  Additionally, petitioner shall clarify the status of George Sill; specifically, is he the named executor (as suggested by the will) or an alternate executor?  On its own motion, the Court continues this matter to May 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for further hearing on the petition.  Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued court date.
     
15. PR0000712     In the Matter of Zane Davis
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter to May 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Petitioners shall file a declaration that indicates whether they are seeking full or limited authority to administer under the Independent Administration of Estates Act, question 2.c. of the petition for probate (form DE-111).  There is no proof that the petition has been served and that notice of the hearing has been provided as required by Probate Code sections 8100 and 8110.  Petitioners shall serve and provide notice to each heir, devisee, executor and alternate executor named in any will as required.  Finally, Petitioners shall file an executed duties and liabilities of personal representative (form DE-147).  The above referenced items shall be completed no later than one week prior to next court date.  Petitioners shall give notice of the continued hearing date to all required parties.
     
16. PR0000714     In the Matter of Dylan Melanson
    No appearance is required.  The court, on its own motion, appoints Katherine Lenore, Esq., to represent conservatee.  Additionally, the court is not in receipt of a report from Alta Regional Center as required by Prob. Code section 1827.5 or from Quest Intelligence as required by Prob. Code section 1826.  On its own motion, the court continues this matter to May 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, for receipt of the reports and update from counsel.  A copy of the minute order shall be served by the clerk on Alta Regional Center, Quest Intelligence, and counsel for the conservatee.

These are the Court’s tentative rulings.  In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309 by 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing.  If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court.  See California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Personal appearances are permitted.  You may also appear via video by arranging a remote appearance at the time notice of request for oral argument.

Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court does not provide court reporters for case management conferences.  Any litigant who wants a record of a case management conference must arrange for the presence of a court reporter at his or her expense.  See Local Rule 10.00.3 B.

---

April 28, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

1. CL0002430          State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. vs. Jeremy Ravenscroft, et al.
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendants shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendants at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
    
2. CL0002431          Barclays Bank Delaware vs. Chris A. Pezzola
   Appearances are not required.  This case is at issue.  Court trial is set for July 28, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall give notice. 
3. CL0002435          Mercury Insurance Company vs. County of Nevada
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
    
4. CU0000569          Susan Foote vs. Jenny Renee Hunter Kaeding
   No appearances are required. A bankruptcy stay remains in effect. The case management conference is continued until July 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. 6. The parties are reminded to file case management conference statements two weeks in advance thereof.
    
5. CU0001386          In the Matter of Rise Grass Valley, Inc.
   Appearances are required.  The court is favorably inclined to adopt the stipulation lodged on March 7, 2025 as part of the County’s case management conference statement with page limits as follows: opening and opposition briefs-40 pp., reply brief-20 pp.
    
6. CU0001454          16th LB, Inc. vs. Trusteel, LLC, et al.
   Appearances are required.  It is unclear whether Botanical Equipment and Research Federation, LLC have been served in this matter.  The parties shall be prepared to confirm their understanding that each party has been served and appropriately filed a response to the complaint. 
    
7. CU0001524          Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Jerad G. Hioki
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff shall provide notice of continued case management conference.
    
8. CU0001576          Michael A. Berson, et al. v. Martin, Daniel DDS, et al.
   Appearances are required.  Counsel Downing shall show cause for his failure to appear on March 17^, 2025 and for the failure to serve and file the summons and complaint on Daniel C. Martin, DDS Dental Corporation.  Parties shall confirm whether the case is at issue particularly as to the corporation.
    
9. CU0001691          Scott Weidert vs. Heartwood Nevada City, LLC, et al.
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendants shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendants at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
    
10. CU0001850          Raymond Davey v. Close Associates
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff shall provide notice of continued case management conference.
     
11. CU0001853          John L. Dodd vs. Jacob O. Bjeldanes, et al.
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

     

12. CU0001854          Wesco Distribution, Inc., vs. Sustainable Energy Group, Inc., et al.
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff to provide notice of continued case management conference.
     
13. CU0001860          Matthew William Vickers vs. Ariana Kathleen Vickers, et al.
    No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
     
14. CU21-085424       David Hunter vs. Bruce Coy, et al.
    Appearances are required.  The parties shall update the court on the status of defendant’s appeal.

April 21, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001304          Discover Bank vs. Heather Glynn
   No appearances are required.  This matter is dismissed without prejudice.  The court retains jurisdiction pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code section 664.6.
    
2. CL0002108          Dorton Drywall, et al. vs. James Clarke, et al.
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendants James Clarke and Liz Clarke shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendants at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
    
3. CL0002112          Discover Bank vs. Susan Gisler
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
    
4. CL0002278          JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Vikki L Vincenzi
   No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or this case dismissed for failing to file a request for default or a request for dismissal of defendant as ordered on March 3, 2025.  The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
    
5. CU0000385          Derek Olsen, et al. v. David Sugalski, et al.
   No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or the action against Wild Acorns Learning Village dismissed for failing to file a request for default or a request for dismissal as to that defendant as ordered on March 3, 2025.  The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
    
6. CU0000410          Taylor Strunk v. Stagecoach Motel et al
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
    
7. CU0001237          Peter Lindley vs. Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority, et al.
   Appearances are required.  The parties shall be prepared to discuss filing of and accompanying briefing schedule for a motion for adjudication of legal issues. 
    
8. CU0001307          Rick Ewald vs. Gary Liardon, et al.
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of remaining defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff to provide notice of continued case management conference.
    
9. CU0001418          John Albert Bacon and Sandra Jacoby Bacon, Trustees, vs. Statewide Homes, Inc.

No appearances are required.  This case is at issue.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 5-day jury trial.

Trial: February 10, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: January 30, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: January 12, 2026, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

10. CU0001540          Bradley Dorigo., et al. vs. County of Nevada
    Appearances are required.  The court has the same proof of service for defendant State of California, filed October 21, 2024 and again on March 3, 2025.  Plaintiff shall clarify whether all defendants have been served and file the appropriate proof of service.
     
11. CU0001640          Evan Benn, et al. vs. Diamond P. Properties, LLC, et al.
    No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendant Diamond P. Properties LLC. shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.

    The order to show cause against Counsel Binh Bui is discharged in the interests of justice.

    Finally, all parties have again failed to file timely case management conference statements.  The parties are admonished that failure to file case management conference statements in advance of the continued date will result in sanctions.  Plaintiff shall provide notice of the continued case management conference.

    
     
12. CU0001643          Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC vs. Ashley Parker, et al.
    No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or the action against Ashley Parker dismissed for failing to file a request for default or a request for dismissal as to that defendant as ordered on March 3, 2025.  Additionally, plaintiff again failed to file a timely case management conference statement and shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned.  The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
     
13. CU0001649          Debbie Havener vs. Shawna Sullivan, et al.
    No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why she should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication (as appropriate) or a request for dismissal for defendant Shawna Sullivan as ordered by the court on March 3, 2025.  The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
     
14. CU0001652          Pawnee Leasing Corporation vs. 1st Choice R & R LLC, et al.
    Appearances are required.  Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned and/or their case dismissed for failing to file a request for default regarding defendant First Choice R&R, LLC., as ordered by the court on January 6, 2025.

    Additionally, no parties submitted timely case management conference statements.  The parties are admonished that failure to file case management conference statements in advance of the continued date can result in sanctions.

    
     
15. CU0001656          Richard Cristdahl v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Inc., et al.
    No appearances are required.  The court has received the request for dismissal from plaintiff.  This case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.  The order to show cause issued against Richard Cristdahl is discharged in the interests of justice.
     
16. CU0001715          William Neil v. County of Nevada, et al.
    No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
     
17. CU0001750          McKellar Tree Service & Logging, Inc. vs. Blue Lead Gold Mining, LLC, et al.
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendant Enegix Mining Group shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least one week prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.

     

18. CU0001762          William Dean Ferreira vs. Stephanie Diane Stone-Ferreira, et al.
    No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
     
19. CU0001842          Charles Eugene Murdock vs. Jodi Michelle Andrews
    No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
     
20. CU0001844          Wells Fargo Bank vs. Tim Radford, et al.
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.

    Additionally, plaintiff failed to submit a timely case management conference statement.  Plaintiff is admonished that failure to file a case management conference statement in advance of the continued date may result in sanctions.

    
     
21. CU0001848          Pamela Bell vs. Dan Powers, et al.  
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.

    Additionally, plaintiff failed to submit a timely case management conference statement.  Plaintiff is admonished that failure to file case management conference statement in advance of the continued date may result in sanctions.

    
     
22. CU0001849          Gregory Thrush vs. Jose Antonio Valdovinos
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendant Valdovinos shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.

    Defendant Valdovinos failed to file a timely case management conference statement and is admonished that failure to file a case management conference statement in advance of the continued date may result in sanctions.

    
     
23. CU21-085893       Tom Amesbury, et al. vs. Barbara Heger, et al.
    No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
     
24. PR0000442           In the Matter of The Sandon Trust
    No appearances are required.  This matter was incorrectly calendared.  The court continues this matter to May 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for the petition to approve the settlement agreement.
     

April 14, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001452           Thomas Duncan Meyers, et al. vs. Ada Mavis Hickey
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication, or a request for dismissal of Defendant Hickey no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
    
2. CL0001563           LVNV Funding LLC vs. Brittany Couture
   No appearances are required.  This matter is dismissed without prejudice.  The court retains jurisdiction following its dismissal without prejudice and subject to California Civil Procedure Code section 664.6.
    
3. CL0002091           Laurie Kristin Agee vs. Melissa Loper
   Appearances are required.  The parties shall be prepared to set a court trial date.
    
4. CL0002395           Discover Bank vs. Natalie Bowen
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication, or a request for dismissal of Defendant Bowen no later than one week prior to the continued case management conference.
    
5. CU0000943          Russell Roark vs. Stephen Cardosi, et al.
   Appearances are required.  Defendants Stephen and Kristyn Cardosi shall show cause for their failure to appear on March 24, 2025.  Additionally, the court notes that both defendants have been served but there is neither a request for default from plaintiff nor a responsive pleading from defendants.  Therefore, this case is not yet at issue.
    
6. CU0001249          Tina Warner v. Jennie Pope
   No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why she should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication or a request for dismissal as ordered by the court on February 3, 2025.  The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
    
7. CU0001395          Eric Butterworth, et al. vs. Mountain Concepts, LLC, et al.
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
    
8. CU0001444          Janet Littlefield, et al. vs. Homecraft Building & Design, Inc., et al.
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Cross-complainant Bartley shall file a proof of service, an application for service by publication, or a request for dismissal of Defendants Old Bull River Construction and Montana’s Best Builders, LLC., no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.  Cross-complainant Bartley shall give notice of the continued case management conference.
    
9. CU0001483          Susan Gabrielle vs. Phillip G. Conlon, Jr.
   Appearances are required.  This case is at issue.  The court intends to set dates for a court trial.  Cross-complainant Conlon shall provide a status regarding cross-defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust and its intentions with respect to the current default. 
    
10. CU0001544          Caitlin Peters vs. Cara Krpalek, et al.       
    No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The service on defendant Jiri Krpalek appears to be defective.  The proof of service does not indicate that a copy of the summons and complaint was mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid to defendant Krpalek at the residence where the copy of the summons and complaint were left, as required by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 415.20.  Plaintiff shall either file an amended proof of service or effectuate service in compliance with the statutory requirements no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
     
11. CU0001600          Darlene Lea v. Cynthia Chapman, et al.
    Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal.  It appears this matter has settled.  The court seeks an update on when the dismissal will be filed.
     
12. CU0001651          Joseph Sacks vs. Navy Federal Credit Union
    No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
     
13. CU0001694          Tuyen Vuong vs. Cynthia Lynn Nulph
    No appearances are required.  This case is at issue.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 7-day jury trial.

Trial: January 13, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: January 2, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: December 15, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

14. CU0001722          Micah Ellis vs. SPD Market, Inc., et al.
    No appearances are required.  This case is at issue.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 7-day jury trial.

Trial: January 27, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: January 9, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: December 29, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

15. CU0001726          Gianna Garrett vs. Jack Laird
    Appearances are required.  The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s request to dismiss the first amended complaint.  In light of that request, the court seeks clarification from plaintiff on status of the case, as it does not appear there is a pending complaint and no defendants have been served.
     
16. CU0001738          Nationstar Mortgage LLC vs. The Testate and Intestate Successors of Gilbert J. Vega, et al.
    No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication or a request for dismissal as ordered by the court on February 24, 2025.  The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
     

    ---

April 7, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

1. CL0002141          Discover Bank vs. Sequoia Nicholas
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
    
2. CL0002373          Discover Bank vs. Patrick Weger
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
    
3. CU0000191          David Elliott, et al. v. Ellen Nevarez, et al.
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
    
4. CU0000634          Carla Marie Vieira vs. Cal. Department of Transportation, et al.
   Appearances are required.  This case appears at issue.  Counsel shall update the court as to the same and be prepared to discuss trial dates.
    
5. CU0000991          Christopher Stormbringer v. Turning Point
   No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 2, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
    
6. CU0001162          Miles Hagood vs. Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc.
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
    
7. CU0001189          Corina Loving-Mills, et al. vs. Abby Eidson
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
    
8. CU0001270          Marin Martin vs. Crystal Kanada, et al.
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
    
9. CU0001308          Cephren Jennemann vs. Gro-Tech Systems, Inc., et al.
   Appearances are required.  Plaintiff shall show cause for failure to file proof of service, an application for service by publication, or a request for dismissal of Defendant Gro-Tech Systems, Inc., as previously ordered.  Additionally, counsel shall show cause for failing to appear on February 24, 2025.  Finally, no parties have filed case management conference statements are required. 
    
10. CU0001320          Sara Bowling vs. Caseproof, LLC, et al.
    Appearances are required.  The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of settlement.
     
11. CU0001347          Patricia Kukucka, et al. vs. Grass Valley S H, LLC, et al.
    No appearances are required.  The court on its own motion continues the case management conference to October 6, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to provide sufficient time for the parties to complete arbitration.
     
12. CU0001354          Cynthia Gustafson vs. Safeway Inc., et al.
    No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why she should not be sanctioned for failing effectuate service on Store Manager, Doe 1. 
     
13. CU0001577          Public Risk Innov. Solutions and Mgt. vs. Sammies Friends Inc.
    No appearances are required.  This case is at issue.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 5-day jury trial.

Trial: January 27, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: January 9, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: December 29, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

14. CU0001813          USA Bath California Remodeling, Inc. vs. David Sweat
    No appearances are required.  This case is at issue.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 5-day jury trial.

Trial: January 27, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: January 9, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: December 29, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

15. CU21-085797       Koslin and Koslin Construction, Inc. vs. GV Development LLC
    Appearances are required.  The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of dismissal.
     
16. P89-10877             In the Matter of Thomas Michael Odom
    No appearances are required.  This matter was incorrectly calendared.  The court continues this matter to May 2, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.
     
17. PR0000642           In the Matter of Shauna Geary
    No appearances are required.  The court has signed the stipulation and order.  This matter is off calendar.
     
18. PR0000664           In the Matter of the Dennis W. Babson 2000 Trust
    Appearances are required.  The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of dismissal.

April 1, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

1. CU0000284          Tod DuBois v Scott Fetty, et al.
   No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
    
2. CU0001613          Judith and Coleman Bowman v. Town of Truckee
   No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
    
3. CU0000656          Riley Gault vs. Mark Steffen
   Appearances are required.  The parties submitted an October 18, 2024, notice of settlement in this matter. The court needs the parties to verify whether this case has settled.  The court is inclined to set another case management conference on May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, to permit plaintiff’s counsel sufficient time to serve the order relieving counsel on plaintiff at his current reported address in Colorado.

---

March 24, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

1. CL0000572          Gerry Reis v. Roger Reis

No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  An order to show cause hearing is set for the same date and time for plaintiff to explain why this action against should not be dismissed and/or plaintiff sanctioned for failure to serve the first amended complaint as previously ordered by the court.  Additionally, plaintiff again failed to filed a case management conference statement and shall show cause why he should not be subject to sanctions. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference and OSC hearing.
 

2. CL0001259          Deal, Thomas M v. Fred Gerkensmeyer, et al.
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The operative complaint is the first amended complaint.  There appears to be a June 13, 2024 proof of service as to both defendants and no responsive pleading.  These minutes shall be distributed to all parties and their counsel including counsel for the Regional Housing Authority, which made a previous appearance.   All parties are directed to appear at the next conference. 
    
3. CL0001985          Cavalry SPV I LLC as assignee of Synchrony vs. Deborah Rawson
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
    
4. CL0002062          Velocity Investments LLC vs. Devin Smith
   This matter will be heard on the 1:00 p.m. calendar.
    
5. CL0002352          Sun Forest Springs, LLC vs. Patricia Johnson
   Appearances are required.  Petitioner shall update court on the status of this case.
    
6. CU0000512          eCapital Asset Based Lending v. Medina, Nicole et al.
   No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 19, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6 following pending motions.
    
7. CU0001082          Stephen David Protzman Jr v. Hansen Brothers Enterprises
   No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned and/or his case dismissed for failing to comply with the previous order to file a proof of service, an application for service by publication (if desired), or a request for dismissal as directed on December 23, 2024. Plaintiff is also ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to file and serve a timely case management conference statement. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference and OSC hearing
    
8. CU0001207          Amanda Powell vs. Briarpatch Cooperative Of Nevada, Inc., et al.
   No appearances are required.  Upon the request of the parties, the court continues this matter to May 5, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for status regarding class approval and settlement.  The parties shall file a motion for preliminary approval of class and PAGA settlement prior thereto set for hearing on an appropriate future date.
    
9. CU0001386          In the Matter of RISE GRASS VALLEY, INC., a Nevada corporation
   No appearances are required.  On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  The court appreciates the parties’ efforts to explore how appropriately to address the issues of this case including their stipulation as to bifurcation. At present, however, the parties have not explained why briefing of 125 pages is required to address the vested-rights related claim.  The parties must provide the court with additional information as to the nature and complexity of this issue so that the court can make an informed decision as to the length of briefs to authorize.  The parties shall submit a joint statement as to the same of no more than three pages no later than 14 days prior to the next scheduled conference.   
    
10. CU0001664          Carla Markeeta Jefferson, et al. vs. Heating-Cooling Service Co., et al.
    Appearances are required.  This case is at issue and the court intends to set trial.  The parties shall meet and confer in advance and be prepared to suggest an appropriate trial date. 
     
11. CU0001723          Umpqua Bank vs. Joseph A. Miller, DMD, Inc., et al.
    Appearances are not required.  The court has received the March 20, 2025, report of plaintiff including its request to expand the receivership.  No withdrawals shall be made from any bank account of the dental business unless agreed by all parties and approved by the court.   Defendant shall file any response to the March 20, 2025, report no later than March 26, 2025, noon.  Any reply shall be filed no later than March 28, 2025, noon.  The matter is set for hearing on the law and motion calendar for April 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  A further case management conference will be set on that date.
12. CU0001796          Sonya Sokolow v. Environmental Health Director Amy Irani
    No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service of summons.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service or request for dismissal no later than one week before the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
     
13. CU0001811          Auto Fraud Legal Center LLP fna Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP vs. Dalton Workman
    No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendant Workman shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least one week prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.

    Additionally, Plaintiff failed to submit a case management conference statement.  Plaintiff is admonished that failure to serve a statement for future case management conferences may subject them to sanctions.

    
     
14. CU22-086160       KEVIN MALONE vs. WILLIAM FERREIRA
    Appearances are required.  This case is at issue.

    Trial is hereby set as follows: 9-day jury trial.

Trial: October 14, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: October 3, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: September 22, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

---

March 17, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001239          American Express National Bank vs. Rose Cage
   No appearances are required.  This matter is dismissed with prejudice.  The court retains jurisdiction following its dismissal with prejudice and subject to California Civil Procedure Code section 664.6.
2. CL0001344          Midland Credit Management Inc vs. David Villnow
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
    
3. CL0001512          Bank of America N.A. vs. Soren Robert Darr
   No appearances are required.  This matter is dismissed without prejudice.  The court retains jurisdiction following its dismissal without prejudice and subject to California Civil Procedure Code section 664.6.
    
4. CL0001542          LVNV Funding LLC vs. William E Ferris
   No appearances are required.  This matter is dismissed without prejudice.  The court retains jurisdiction following its dismissal without prejudice and subject to California Civil Procedure Code section 664.6.
    
5. CL0002331          United Financial Casualty Company vs. Katie Powers
   No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or request for dismissal not later than one week before the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
    
6. CU0000828          Brooke Brady v. Carol Silverman
   Appearances are required.  Plaintiff shall show cause why she should not be sanctioned and/or this case dismissed for failing to serve the summons and complaint and failing to appear on September 16, 2024.
    
7. CU0000948          Ivan Nyal vs. Jack Bacon
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
    
8. CU0001181          Cynthia Hermosa vs. Adam Rayford Kilpatrick et al.
   No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  An order to show cause hearing is set for the same date and time for plaintiff to explain why the action against defendant Garrett Warner Woodgrift should not be dismissed and/or plaintiff sanctioned for failure to serve the summons and complaint.  Additionally, no party filed a case management conference statement and is admonished that failure to serve a statement for future case management conferences may subject it to sanctions. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference and OSC hearing.
9. CU0001257          Barbara Cramer vs. Advanced Home Health and Hospice, Inc., et al.
   Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal.  The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of this case.
10. CU0001576          Michael A. Berson, et al. v. Martin, Daniel DDS, et al.
    Appearances are required.  This case appears at issue, but the court requests confirmation from the parties that all defendants have been served and answered.  Specifically, has Daniel C. Martin, DDS Dental Corporation, d/b/a Tahoe Oral Surgery and Implant Center, a named defendant in the complaint, answered this complaint?  Upon confirmation, the court is inclined to set trial dates as follows:

    Trial is hereby set as follows: 10-day jury trial.

    
    Trial: September 30, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
    PTC: September 19, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
    MSC: September 8, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
11. CU0001611          Fora Financial Asset Securitization 2021 LLC vs. TJ's Roadhouse of Nevada City LLC, et al.
    No appearance is required.  A hearing regarding default judgment is set for June 27, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Dept. 6.
12. CU0001620          Beau Grady vs. Loren Ralph Winters
    Appearances are required.  This case is at issue.

    Trial is hereby set as follows: 5-day jury trial.

    
    Trial: December 2, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
    PTC: November 21, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
    MSC: November 10, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

    The February 19, 2025 order to show cause is discharged in the interests of justice.  The court notes that plaintiff failed to file a case management conference statement as required. 

13. CU0001698          James Saunders Grill v. Eleonore Anderson, et al.
    Appearances are not required.  The court has entered dismissals with prejudice for both the complaint and cross-complaint as requested.      
14. CU0001781          Kathlene Bonnigson vs. Albertsons Safeway LLC
    Appearances are required. This case is at issue.  Parties shall confirm availability of dates below.

    Trial is hereby set as follows: 7-day jury trial.
    Trial: October 28, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
    PTC: October 17, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
    MSC: October 6, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

15. CU0001787          Carol Lynn Hills v. State of California
    No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.  Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or request for dismissal not later than one week before the continued case management conference.  Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
     
16. CU0001793          Jamie Davidson vs. Bluebell Holdings, LLC
    No appearances are required.  On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 following defendant’s motion to compel arbitration set for April 4, 2025.
     
17. CU0001794          PHH Mortgage Corporation vs. Brenda Marie Durtschi, et al.
    No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.  Defendant Durtschi shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least one week prior to the continued case management conference.
     
18. CU0001795          Krissa Connelley vs. Todd Tuggle, et al.
    No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.   Cross-Complainants shall identify and serve any desired “Roes 1 through 50” by the next case management conference.

April 17, 2025 and April 24, 2025 Department 3 Guardianship Annual Review Tentative Ruling

---

Notice:

These are the Court’s tentative rulings.  Attorneys and parties are directed to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing. These tentative rulings will be adopted by the Court, unless the guardian and / or parent personally appears at the hearing and objects to the tentative ruling. The person requesting that appearance must notify the other party / parties AND the court before 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing date. 

Email OA@nccourt.net  with a copy to the other party / parties to give this notice.   You may request to appear remotely by clicking here.

If you need any help with the information in the tentative ruling, you can: 

• Find Your Court Forms - Guardianship  for the forms stated in the tentative ruling.  OR
• Submit a Self-Help request  OR
• Send email to selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net  OR
• Come to the Court’s Self-Help Center Monday through Friday for forms and information about the next steps. OR
• Consult a private attorney.

04/24/2025 at 9:00 a.m.

Guardianship Calendar Tentative Rulings Department 3

1. Case No.  P0000450  In the Matter of: Brody B.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interests of the minor. The Court has reviewed the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 04/07/2025.  Your appearance on Thursday, 04/24/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 04/02/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.

04/17/2025 at 9:00 a.m.

Guardianship Calendar Tentative Rulings Department 3

1. Case No.  P0000096  In the Matter of: Brooklynn M.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interests of the minor. The Court has reviewed the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 04/10/2025.  Your appearance on Thursday, 04/17/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 04/02/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.

2. Case No.  P0000212  In the Matter of: Logun P.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interests of the minor. The Court has reviewed the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 03/12/2025.  Your appearance on Thursday, 04/17/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 04/02/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.

3. Case No.  P0000192  In the Matter of: Joel S.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interests of the minor. The Court has reviewed the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 03/17/2025.  Your appearance on Thursday, 04/17/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 04/02/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.

Friday, April 4, 2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference 

Friday, March 21, 2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference 

Friday, March , 7  2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference 

Friday, February, 7  2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference 

Friday, January 3, 2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference 

Friday, December 6, 2024 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference

Family Law Status Conference standard order terms.

The following terms apply to all of the below cases and are incorporated by reference into the tentative decision for each case.   Review them carefully.

1. These are the Court’s tentative rulings.  In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309, Ext. 4 no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing.  If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court. 

2. If neither party gives that notice, your appearance at the status conference. is not necessary UNLESS the tentative decision in your case requires that appearance.  
3. No Judgment has been entered in this case yet.  No Judgment or other orders will be entered automatically. Moving forward with this case will require action from at least one party.
4. If you need forms or assistance with the orders in item 2, you may contact the attorney of your choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
5. If both parties want to opt out of further status conference, each must notify the Clerk at nccounter@nccourt.net, with a copy to the other party. Unless both parties opt out at least three (3) court days before the status conference date, appearance at the next status conference is required. 
6. If both parties opt out of the status conference process, the orders to serve and file the above documents will be vacated at the time that this opt out is effective.  These documents will still be required before the case can proceed further. The Court can place the case back on the Status Conference calendar and reinstate a filing deadline for these documents on request of either party or by the Court giving notice of a new Status Conference date.
7. Submission of a settlement agreement and Judgment documents will vacate the Status Conference only after the Judge has approved the Judgment.   

______________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001395              

Petitioner:  Restad, Barbara  

Attorney: Montero, John V.  

Respondent: Restad, Lawrence                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  No further status conference will be set.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001441              

Petitioner:  Menig, Faith        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Menig, Ryan     

Attorney: Miller, Chandra (Ltd scope)

1. This is the third status conference.   No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  No further status conference will be set.
2.  Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
3. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001458              

Petitioner:  Dalmau, Brandee

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Martinelli, David                                              

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

1. This is the third status conference.   No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  No further status conference will be set.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001467              

Petitioner:  Andrews, Jodi     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Walsh, Robert  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  No further status conference will be set.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001502              

Petitioner:  Garcia, Thomas Ronald                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Garcia, Candice S.                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Judgment was entered between these parties in Case # FL0001500 on 07/22/2024. No case management is needed. The Court intends to dismiss this case if no party appears and shows cause why the matter should not be dismissed. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001508              

Petitioner:  Toohey, Candice 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Toohey, Brian   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  No further status conference will be set.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-110 Summons on Amended Petition
   2. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  on original petition and on amended petition. OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   3. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   4. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001776              

Petitioner:  Clanton, Erinlee  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Clanton, Christopher                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
      1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.    
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001992              

Petitioner:  Skowyra, Allyssa Fennelly                                   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Skowyra, Daniel Joseph                                    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002007              

Petitioner:  Peterson, Julia Anne                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Miller, Matthew Scott                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002023              

Petitioner:  Leonard, Tamera Ann                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Leonard Michael Ryan                                     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
   3. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002050              

Petitioner:  Martinelli, Christopher Edmund                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Martinelli, Jennifer Lisa                                   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   3. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   4. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002063              

Petitioner:  Johnson, Nathan 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Johnson, Heather                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
      1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.    
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002407              

Petitioner:  Jaime, Kasey       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Jaime, David     

Attorney: Anderson, William

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002539              

Petitioner:  Whetton, Lucy    

Attorney: Alexander, Kristen

Respondent: Whetton, Guy   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002541              

Petitioner:  Monroe, Murli    

Attorney: Mercer, Eric

Respondent: Guzman, Bryan Allen                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
      1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002542              

Petitioner:  Tracy, Michelle   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Lavoie, Jeremie

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner. 
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   3. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   4. FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002543              

Petitioner:  Block, Sharlene Renee                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Block, Jeffery Steven                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002549              

Petitioner:  Berry, Rick          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Berry, Lisa Bonney                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002564              

Petitioner:  Canepa, Gabriella Frances                                  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Canepa, Andre Jae                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
   2. MC-030 Declaration to re-submit Judgment for review.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002569              

Petitioner:  Luquin, Lauren Kathleen                                     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Luquin, Edward Alexis-Garcia                          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002570              

Petitioner:  Cook, Jeffrey       

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Cook, Christina 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002585              

Petitioner:  Ross, Brittany      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Ross, Aaron Manual                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002593              

Petitioner:  Justyn, Emily       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Stafford, David Reed                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002620              

Petitioner:  Henslee, Shannon                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Henslee, Daniel Paul                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002631              

Petitioner:  Ford, Laura         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Harrison, Christopher Sr.                                 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002640              

Petitioner:  Saari, Melinda Vienna                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Edgerton, Jamie Allen                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002652              

Petitioner:  Ostrofe, Sabine L.

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Ostrofe, Allen F.                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
      1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.    
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

04/04/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL21-016368           

Petitioner:  Demara, Sandra  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Demara, Robert

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The original Petition in this matter was filed on 03/15/2021 and served on 03/24/2024. The Court intends to deem the Petition filed on 09/19/2024 an Amended Petition based on that filing. The Court has not received proof of service of the Petition and Summons filed on 09/19/2024. Both must be served to proceed with this matter. 
3. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
4. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
5. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/21/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FLFL0002566           

Petitioner:  Clifford, Callie     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Clifford, Traver 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 10/03/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 10/01/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/03/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000830              

Petitioner:  Adams, Richard  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Adams, Tanya   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance or further status conference is contemplated by the Court at this time. 
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0000903              

Petitioner:  Schwartz, Patrick

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Schwartz, Lacey B.                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   No continuance or further status conference is contemplated by the Court at this time. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL00001398            

Petitioner:  Tipton, Brittany  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Cook, Jared       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance or further status conference is contemplated by the Court at this time.   
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001416              

Petitioner:  Mantooth, Colleen                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Mantooth, Steve                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001723              

Petitioner:  Hood, Megan      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Hood, Brian      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001898              

Petitioner:  Mallo, Mona-Lisa

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Mallo, Mark     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001915              

Petitioner:  Griffiths, Melinda Sue                                         

Attorney: Anderson, James

Respondent: Fritz, Daryl Wayne                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001960              

Petitioner:  Keyser, Kevin      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Keyser, Rebekah                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

_________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001961              

Petitioner:  Vargas. Jeffrey    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Vargas, Molly   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001981              

Petitioner:  Farrell, Marcia Webster                                     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Farrell, Douglas Ted                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001982              

Petitioner:  Brautigam, Nga  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Brautigam, Jared                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001995              

Petitioner:  Colbert, Danyel   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Bartoli, Vincent

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-270 Response to Petition for Custody and Support of Minor Children OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002005              

Petitioner:  Rodriguez, Hope 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Rodriguez, David                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002018              

Petitioner:  Samson, Allison Rivers                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Samson, David Scott                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002029              

Petitioner:  Sullivan, Shelly    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Morrow, Nico   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.  .  
   2. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons .  FL-115 is not complete.  The address of service information is missing.  If the original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served.  When the Court has the correct Proof of Service, the Court requires one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response  and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response.  Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR 
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002397              

Petitioner:  Gerhart, Audrey  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Gerhart, Keith   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002417              

Petitioner:  Peterson, Ingrid  

Attorney: Christie, Nancy

Respondent: Carter, Tom      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   3. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   4. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002433              

Petitioner:  Rocha, Ashley Anne                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Rocha. Lionel Cardoza II                                   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002475              

Petitioner:  LaGrou, Melanie 

Attorney: Anderson, Sara (Ltd scope)  

Respondent: Gardner, Brian 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons   only if parties want termination of marital status before 03/19/2025. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002498              

Petitioner:  Guiterrez, Samantha                                          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Guiterrez, Israel

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. Since Judgment was declined because there were no child support forms and calculation attached when the judgment did not actually ask for child support at this time, Petitioner needs to file an explanation and request re-submission.   For forms or assistance with that, Petitioner may contact the attorney of her choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002500              

Petitioner:  Hostetter, Raymond Wayne                               

Attorney: Klein, w. Gregory

Respondent: Hostetter, Shana Lee Johnson                          

Attorney: Anderson, James

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002504              

Petitioner:  Dixon, Jerry         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Dixon, Kaye      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002516              

Petitioner:  Foster, Mark       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Foster, Heather

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002517              

Petitioner:  Greene, Hannah Breeze                                     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Greene, Adam Abraham                                  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002518              

Petitioner:  Thibodeaux, Jennifer                                          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Thibodeaux, John                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002533              

Petitioner:  Baker, Typer Robert                                            

Attorney: Bell, Joseph

Respondent: Baker, Sherron Angell                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002535              

Petitioner:  Kroner, Elisha     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kroner, Adam   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002554              

Petitioner:  Baker, Megan Rebecca                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Baker, Christian Lee                                         

Attorney: Granger, Jennifer

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002565              

Petitioner:  Weisman, Zachary D.                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Don, Evangelina

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/05/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

03/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002579              

Petitioner:  Foster, Jeff          

Attorney: Strasser, Laura (ltd scope) Self-Represented

Respondent: Johnson, Ellen  

Attorney: Gettys, Canence (Ltd scope) Self-Represented

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001315              

Petitioner:  Piaget, Isis           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Roldan, Pedro Merida                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001324              

Petitioner:  Gardner, Michael A.                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Lucero, Sara J.  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001765              

Petitioner:  Kenyon, Alison    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kenyon, Eric     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons .  FL-115 is not complete.  The date and time of service are missing.  If original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served.  Once correct Proof of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response  and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response.  Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR 
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001804              

Petitioner:  Langlois, Mary Lou                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Langlois, David Bruce                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001820              

Petitioner:  Flecksteiner, Annessa                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Flecksteiner, Jeffrey                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:.  
   1. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons .  FL-115 is not complete.  The address information is missing.  If original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served.  Once date of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response  OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response.  Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR 
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001826              

Petitioner:  LeVeaux, Devon  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Lopez LeVeaux, Antonio                                   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001874              

Petitioner:  Holstrom, Richard III                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Holstrom, Ashley                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001905              

Petitioner:  Alvarado, Jesseca R.                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Alvarado, Brian M.                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002227              

Petitioner:  Wright, Dean Norman                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Wright, Carolyn Jill Crist                                  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002339              

Petitioner:  Greeley, India     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Greeley, Erik     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002349              

Petitioner:  Gordon, Gwen    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Keyser, Herbert Carter                                     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002351              

Petitioner:  Gilchrist, Leanne 

Attorney: Carter, Gregory

Respondent: Gilchrist, Timothy                                             

Attorney: Bell, Joseph

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court.
2.  The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002356              

Petitioner:  Allen, Adriana     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Allen, Dustin     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002360              

Petitioner:  Phillips, Morgan 

Attorney: Foley, Ryan

Respondent: Phillips, Chandler                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002362              

Petitioner:  Smith, Andrea     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Smith, Jonathan Jeffrey-Lee                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002367              

Petitioner:  DeMario, Christopher                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: DeMario, Jamie

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002373              

Petitioner:  Morales, Skye     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Morales, Jackie

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002378              

Petitioner:  Dionne, Terii       

Attorney: Christie, Nancy

Respondent: Van Der Zalm, Erikl                                          

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002384              

Petitioner:  Foster, Scott Foster                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Foster, Andrea 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002391              

Petitioner:  Woodruff, Joseph

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: DeGennaro, Brandy                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002394              

Petitioner:  Wells, Lisa           

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Wells, Ryan       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002396              

Petitioner:  Thibodeau, Jaime

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Lucero, Angel   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002401              

Petitioner:  Uribe, Cesar J.     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kelly, Nicole C.  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons .  If original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served.  Once date of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response  OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response.  Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR 
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served and request to set prove-up hearing.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002404              

Petitioner:  Kiser, Lissa          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kiser, Richard Jr.                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002408              

Petitioner:  McLees, Ryan      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: McLees, Giedre

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002418              

Petitioner:  Green Wells, Megan Frances                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Wells, Michael Ryan                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002423              

Petitioner:  Garcia, Ruth Debora                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Garcia, John      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner AND Request to set prove-up hearing for nullity facts.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002425              

Petitioner:  Dreher, Elizabeth

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Dreher, Douglas Joseph                                    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002429              

Petitioner:  Foster, Kathy Ellen                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Johnson, Samuel Elan                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002437              

Petitioner:  Ingle, Robert       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Ingle, Melyssa  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002450              

Petitioner:  Nunnink, Danny  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nunnink, Kyle   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

02/07/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002472              

Petitioner:  Mason, Kasi        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Mason, Timothy                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/1/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

*****

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001023              

Petitioner:  Davis, Jerrett       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Davis, Angel      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001159              

Petitioner:  Hojnacki, Jennifer

Attorney: Medina, Angelina

Respondent: Taapa, Jonathon                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.  If Judgment is entered before the status conference, no appearance is required. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL00001176            

Petitioner:  Adachi, Craig      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Adachi, Susan   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001193              

Petitioner:  Belendez, Rachel

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Belendez, Robert                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001197              

Petitioner:  Trethewey, Mary E.                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Trethewey, Paul M.                                          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001203              

Petitioner:  Selletti, Stephanie                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Selletti, Justin   

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001683              

Petitioner:  Skellenger, Jason

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Skellener, Katherine                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001710              

Petitioner:  Goodyear, Amelia                                              

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Hippert, Joseph

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001712              

Petitioner:  Kanani, Babak     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kanani, Miriam

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001763              

Petitioner:  Menezes, Rebecca                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Menezes, Freddie                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001777              

Petitioner:  Brace, George     

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

Respondent: Brace, Darci     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002282              

Petitioner:  Peternell, Raymond                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Peternell, Megan                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002297              

Petitioner:  Nicholson, Cynthia Louise                                  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nicholson, Justin Levi                                       

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002312              

Petitioner:  Turek, Ricki Roberts                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Turek, Daniel    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   3. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   4. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002314              

Petitioner:  Coulter, Crystal S.                                               

Attorney: Granger, Jennifer

Respondent: Coulter, Chris G.                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002324              

Petitioner:  Entler, Ruby        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Shaw, Luke       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002326              

Petitioner:  Dugan, Kenneth  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Dugan, Tina Thayer C.                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. Summons was not filed with the Petition.  Court intends to issue an OSC to dismiss the case.  Petitioner can cure this by filing  Summons on or before December 31, 2024. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002333              

Petitioner:  Herzig, James      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Brown, Jessica  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002366              

Petitioner:  Click, Kevin          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Richardson, Hanamae                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 08/01/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 07/29/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 08/01/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

01/03/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002379              

Petitioner:  Montgomery, Linda                                            

Attorney: Thompson, Sara

Respondent: Montgomery, Mark                                         

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION  

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001040              

Petitioner:  Williams, Kendall

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Williams, RIcky 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure . 
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001071              

Petitioner:  VanValkenberg. Angela                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Clark, Gavin      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .    
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001076              

Petitioner:  Duarte, Miriah    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nicholson, Clint

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001103              

Petitioner:  Ly, Sarah             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Ly, Cun              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001105              

Petitioner:  Lerche, Ella         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Ramsay, Mitchell                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   The Status Conference is dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001109              

Petitioner:  Dunmire, Judy     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Dunmire, David

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
   4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001140              

Petitioner:  Whitley, Sierra    

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

Respondent: Whitley, Thomas                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

_________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001313              

Petitioner:  Carver, Christopher                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Carver, Renee  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference.   Personal appearance is required.  No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.  If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
      1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.  
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001619              

Petitioner:  Knox, Keenen      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Zolling, Kimberly                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-270 Response to Petition for Custody and Support of Minor Children OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001623              

Petitioner:  Kendrick, Scott    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kendrick, Karen

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001626              

Petitioner:  Gutierrez Agoado, Christine                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Gutierrez Agoado, Richard                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. There are issues with service of process before the case can move forward.
3. If you need forms or assistance with the orders, you may contact the attorney of your choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001629              

Petitioner:  Driggs, Kristin L.  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Driggs, Jeffrey P.                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.  
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001644              

Petitioner:  Peeler, Jennifer Jasmine                                     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Peeler, Jason Daniel                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001651              

Petitioner:  Ford, Tara           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Tyner, Cath       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001673              

Petitioner:  Dana, Jayleen      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Dana, Justin      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001692              

Petitioner:  Tostenson, Briannahlyn                                      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Tostenson, Michael                                         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001702              

Petitioner:  Avery, Stephanie 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Avery, Jerry      

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002166              

Petitioner:  Nesbit, MIchele  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nesbit, Evan Ryan                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002167              

Petitioner:  Grose, May         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Gunderson, David Byron                                  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002173              

Petitioner:  Nigro, Emily        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Nigro, Vincent  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002176              

Petitioner:  Hinrichs, Sandra  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Salmonson, Karl

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002178              

Petitioner:  Cyrus, Sonja        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Cyrus, Kalvin     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002190              

Petitioner:  Plisik, Michael J.  

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Plisik, Kristina M.                                              

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002199              

Petitioner:  Lachman, Lori     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: McAlinn, Shawn

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002204              

Petitioner:  DeLaughter, Breannah                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: DeLaughter, Cory                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002205              

Petitioner:  Martinez, Sophie 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Martinez, Anthony James                                

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of th tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002216              

Petitioner:  Kemmer, Suzanne                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Tackaberry, Michael                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons  OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal  if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. 
   2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. 
   3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3.   FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002217              

Petitioner:  Kenney, Amanda

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Kenney, Jeffrey

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002219              

Petitioner:  Castro, Kayla       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Castro, Louis     

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.     
   2. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons .  FL-115 is not complete.  The address / date / time / server information is missing.  If original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served.  Once date of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response  and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response.  Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR 
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.   
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002220              

Petitioner:  Taylor-Hren, Mewgan                                        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Elliott, Jeremiah

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002221              

Petitioner:  Cregar, Christina

Attorney: Ewing, Janet

Respondent: Groom, Ray      

Attorney: Thompson, Sara

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 
2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002228              

Petitioner:  Torres, Pablo       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Yarala, Stephanie                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002235              

Petitioner:  Thompson, Robert Wesley                                 

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Alee, Rhonda Lee                                             

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.
2. The parties asked for inconsistent underlying relief which cannot be resolved at a Status Conference.
3. If you need forms or assistance with the procedure, you may contact the attorney of your choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002237              

Petitioner:  Pasciutti, James Danile                                       

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Pasciutti, Donette Rose                                    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
   2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
   3. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002258              

Petitioner:  Thompson, Aaron                                               

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Cohen, Liz         

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002272              

Petitioner:  Marks, Cory Thomas                                           

Attorney: Bell, Joseph

Respondent: Marks, Isadora Pacheco                                   

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. No appearance by parties or counsel is necessary at this Status Conference.  The Court presumes that no further Status Conference is necessary at this time. The matter may be restored to the Status Conference at the request of either party or by notice from the Court. 

2. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002278              

Petitioner:  Lund, Ryan          

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Hunt, Kylie        

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.  
   2. FL-105 GC-120(A) Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) from Respondent
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002285              

Petitioner:  Peebles, Travis    

Attorney:  Self-Represented

Respondent: Peebles, Samantha                                           

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. 
   2. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

12/06/2024, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002290              

Petitioner:  Amezcus, Corinne                                               

Attorney: Thompson, Sara

Respondent: Amezcus, Kenneth                                            

Attorney:  Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 06/06/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch.  Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 06/02/2025.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required:
   1. One of the following:
      1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
      2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14. Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County)  if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
      3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default  from Petitioner.  If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .  
3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 06/06/2025, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.