Tentative Rulings

Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

August 5, 2022 Dept. 6

If a tentative ruling is not issued below for a matter which you believe should be on calendar, please contact OA@nccourt.net.

THE COURT HAS CREATED A NEW EMAIL ADDRESS FOR REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT. PLEASE SEE BELOW

In re Laurel Wright Case No. CU0000043

Appearances are required by the parties or their respective counsel. This is a status hearing only. The Court requires an update on the case, including the parties’ proposed briefing schedule and date for a contested hearing.

Elder v. Oyung Case No. CL19-084361

Appearances are required by counsel for both parties. The matter is presently before the Court on two separate but closely-related motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for reclassification and for continuance of trial dates; and (2) Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On the Court’s own motion, the matter is reclassified as an unlimited civil matter. (Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 403.040(a).) Any party opposed to the same may respond and offer reasons for the same at the hearing. (See Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223.) The parties dispute the validity of the original loan, performance of the original loan, as well as title to the property pledged as security. The interests of justice would be best served by resolving all of these issues on the merits. (See e.g., Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1085 [recognizing the “strong policy against disposing of cases on procedural deficiencies rather than trying cases on the merits”].)

Plaintiff’s motion to continue the trial dates is granted. The court trial presently set for August 22, 2022, is hereby vacated. Given the age of the case, the matter is reset for court trial on November 1, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. At the August 5, 2022, hearing, the parties are to present the Court with an agreed schedule to complete all pre-trial proceedings for the purposes of a trial on November 1, 2022.

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied for the reasons discussed more fully below.

(1) Reclassification is granted on the Court’s own motion under Section 403.040(a).

Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 403.040(a) provides that the “court, on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time” and that the “court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification, regardless of any fault or lack of fault, if the case has been classified in an incorrect jurisdictional classification” (Id.) The Court’s exercise of this power is conditioned on the parties being provided “sufficient opportunity to respond and offer reasons why [reclassification] should or should not be ordered.” (See Stern, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at 231.) Here, the parties have had a full opportunity to brief, provide declarations and supporting exhibits, and argue the issue of reclassification.

The case of Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266 specifically deals with the question of when a case is incorrectly classified and the standard the Court should apply in making its assessment for purposes of Section 403.040.

In Ytuarte, the court dealt with a situation where a case was initially filed as an unlimited civil action and was later reclassified by the Court after its sua sponte issuance of an order to show cause for the same. The matter came on appeal after movant sought to thereafter reclassify the matter yet again to an unlimited civil matter under Section 403.040(b) and was denied by the trial court. (Id. at 270.) The Court, overturning the trial court’s denial, articulated the standard as follows:

“[Movant] is not required to show ‘the high level of certainty ... the damage award will exceed $25,000’ to obtain reclassification. Instead, [movant] must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility the damages will exceed $25,000. The trial court, without adjudicating the merits of the underlying case, should review the record to determine whether a judgment in excess of $25,000 is obtainable. If a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict may result, […] the court should grant the motion to reclassify the case as ‘unlimited.’ Concomitantly, the court may deny the motion only where it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff’s damage will necessarily be $25,000 or less.”

(Id. at 482-483, emphasis original.) The Ytuarte court clearly notes that the above standard applies equally to cases that are at their inception filed as limited civil matters. (Id. at 280, fn. 5.) In crafting the standard above, the Court pulled heavily from the case of Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, which dealt with reclassification of cases from unlimited to limited.

In Walker, the high court’s reasoning was based heavily around a concern for avoiding the deprivation of remedies imposed on a Plaintiff that naturally flows from reclassifying a matter from unlimited to limited. (See id. at 271 [reclassification from unlimited to limited is an “extreme” authority to be sparingly used owing to its inherent deprivation of remedies imposed on a plaintiff].) Ytuarte, dealing with the converse situation – moving from limited to unlimited – notes that the concerns in Walker are simply absent insofar as “classification as an unlimited case deprives plaintiff of nothing – the court in an unlimited case may enter a damage award that exceeds or falls below $25,000.” (Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 278-279.) Based on that reasoning, the Court concluded: “[T]he court should reject [a] plaintiff’s effort to reclassify the action as unlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an ‘unlimited’ case is certain and clear.

Here, Defendant’s own opposition indicates the property at issue in this case is “worth at or above $350,000.” (Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Reclassify, Pg. 1, Lines 18-20.) Plaintiff’s briefing is in agreement: “the Property … has an estimated worth of over $350,000.” (Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition, Pg. 4, Lines 20-22.) The heart of this particular case and the primary relief sought by Plaintiff is for the title of the subject property to be returned to him in accordance with the note. Ytuarte counsels that the court may deny reclassification only where “it appears to a legal certainty” that the damages will necessarily be $25,000 or less. The exact opposite is true here: the value of damages at issue in this case are undisputedly in excess. The foregoing is dispositive of the question of whether this case is improperly classified, but there are other factors that warrant further consideration.

Keeping in mind the Walker and Ytuarte courts’ admonitions about fundamental notions of due process, to wit: a need to avoid a plaintiff’s unnecessary deprivation of remedies based on classification, the Court must consider the effect of Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 86(b)(1), which, as Defendant concedes, prevents a court presiding over a limited civil case from trying title to real property. (Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 275 [interpreting Section 86(b)(1) and stating “a court in a limited civil action cannot determine the title to real property”].) The above point in Ytuarte is well taken, and, if this matter remains as a limited civil action, Plaintiff will necessarily be deprived of his ability to try issues of title to the subject property.

Defendant argues in connection with this particular element that Plaintiff must, in addition to showing improper classification, demonstrate he is not at fault for the case being improperly characterized to get the requested relief. The Court is not persuaded. Defendant offers no citations to statute or case law for this proposition. Section 403.040 contains no such requirements and nothing in either Walker or Ytuarte compel such a conclusion.

For all the foregoing reasons, the matter is reclassified on the Court’s own motion under Section 403.040(a).

(2) The motion to continue to the trial is granted.

In evaluating a motion for continuance, the Court is guided by consideration of the non-exclusive list of factors contained in Ca. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332. (See also Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1394 [court must consider Rule 3.1332 factors when ruling on continuances but the policy of deciding cases on the merits is the overriding concern].)

Plaintiff specifically points to two factors: (1) continuance may be based on a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial; and (2) continuance should be granted as a failure to do so would deprive the party of an opportunity to “fully and fairly present the party’s case.” Both points are closely related and well taken given the foregoing authorities. The reclassification is a significant change in the status of the litigation, which will understandably result in the parties not being immediately ready for trial. Further, with the reclassification granted as discussed above, discovery is no longer constrained by the rules of economic litigation and the parties will, as noted in the moving papers, require additional time to prepare the case for trial.

(3) Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

Apart from the timing considerations, a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially analogous to a general demurrer. (Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 438(f); International Association of Firefighters Local 230 v. City of San Jose (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1196.) In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court assumes the truth of, and must liberally construe, all properly plead factual allegations in the complaint and any matters subject to judicial notice. (Berzidijan v. O’Reily (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321.) The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings can be phrased as follows: “under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Id.) Critically, the Court does not resolve questions of witness credibility or evidentiary conflicts in conducting its review. (Id.)

Defendant raises two separate basis in support of his motion: (1) a court in a limited civil action is without jurisdiction and is statutorily precluded from determining title to real property; Defendant also argues that specific performance or rescission of a contract are similarly barred here; and (2) the pleadings are defective for a claim of breach of contract insofar as the face of Plaintiff’s pleadings admit he has failed to perform the contract as required.

Defendant relies on Ytuarte in support of the argument that a court may not determine title to real property in a civil matter. (Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 86(b)(1); Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 275 [interpreting Section 86(b)(1) and stating “a court in a limited civil action cannot determine the title to real property”].) The holding in Yuarte is, however, inapposite for cases classified as unlimited civil matters. Defendant’s argument is thus mooted by the Court’s grant of reclassification. His argument that the Court is unable to consider questions of specific performance or rescission is similarly mooted, as it is axiomatic that a court considering an unlimited civil matter is empowered to determine all such questions.

As to Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff has failed to plead the basic elements for breach of contract based on his admitted failure to perform the contract, the Court is not persuaded. The Court considers only the properly plead factual allegations and liberally construes the same in making its determination. The basic elements for breach: (1) existence of a valid contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for non-performance; (3) defendant’s breach of contract; and (4) resulting damages. (CACI, No. 303.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff concedes a failure to pay the amount required in the note and therefore his complaint is defective. In doing so, he effectively attacks element two – Plaintiff’s performance or excuse for non-performance. Plaintiff, however, pleads that he “has performed all obligations to defendant except those [he] was prevented or excused from performing.” He also pleads that Defendant refused to accept the balance owed on the contract. Given the foregoing, Plaintiff’s pleadings demonstrate the minimal showing required for purposes of this motion.

For all the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

Daunch v. Judy Jack et al Case No. CU20-084434

The motion is continued on the Court’s own motion to September 2, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6. No appearances are required.

The matter is before the Court on Oakview’s motion for determination of good-faith settlement. The Court is inclined to grant its motion, however, Oakview has failed to include in its declaration or supporting exhibits an approximate value of the cost waiver contemplated by the settlement agreement as seems to be required under the relevant case law. (See e.g., West v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1625; Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 951.) Such information is necessary for the Court as part of its determination of “good faith” and assessment of the factors under Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.

Oakview shall provide the Court with a declaration as to the value of the cost waiver by no later than August 19, 2022.

Discover Bank v. Sumner Case No. CU22-086153

The motion for summary judgment is dropped from the Court’s calendar at the request of the moving party. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of settlement with the Court on July 15, 2022. No appearances are required.

Mitchell v. Mitchell Case No. CU22-086295

Defendant’s motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel is continued to August 19, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6, pursuant to the stipulation and agreement of the parties. No appearances are required.

Bow v. Cebridge Telecom et al Case No. TCU21-7785

The application for admission pro hac vice is granted as prayed. No appearances are required.

-------------------------------------------------------

THE COURT HAS CREATED A NEW EMAIL ADDRESS FOR REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT. PLEASE SEE BELOW.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. All persons, two years of age and older, ARE HIGHLY RECOMMENDED TO wear a face covering. (See Executive Order 205).

You may also appear via VIDEO by arranging A REMOTE appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

This is the Court’s tentative ruling. 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 before the hearing. If you do not so notify the parties and court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling. Any argument is limited to five minutes. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. 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. Local Rule 10.00.3B.

Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

July 29, 2022 Dept. 6

If a tentative ruling is not issued below for a matter which you believe should be on calendar, please contact OA@nccourt.net.

THE COURT HAS CREATED A NEW EMAIL ADDRESS FOR REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT. PLEASE SEE BELOW.

Elder v. Oyung Case No. CL19-084361

Plaintiff’s motion for additional discovery is granted as prayed. Defendant is ordered to provide answers to all of the following: (1) form interrogatories 15.1, 17.1, and 50.1; (2) special interrogatories 4 through 23; and (3) request for production of documents 6 through 24. The discovery deadline is hereby extended to August 12, 2022, and all responses to the above-noted discovery items must be provided no later than close of business on that date.

Having considered and granted Plaintiff’s motion for additional discovery, the Court does not consider or address Plaintiff’s alternative request to remove the present litigation from economic litigation at this time. Trial dates remain as presently set. No appearances are required.

Gould v. PHH Mortgage et al Case No. CU21-085398

Defendants have filed three separate discovery motions that are presently before the Court, to wit: (1) a motion to compel responses to special interrogatories set one; (2) a motion to compel responses to request for production of documents set one; and (3) a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted. As to each, Defendants separately seek monetary sanctions. The Court notes there have not been any oppositions filed by Plaintiff as to any the above-referenced motions. The Court further notes that Plaintiff is self-represented, his counsel having been relieved by order of the Court on or about February 18, 2022.

Defendants have made the requisite showings that discovery requests were timely propounded, the time for response has elapsed, and no answers, documents, requests for extensions, or other responses have been received. All of Defendants’ motions are thus granted. Monetary sanctions are awarded as to each motion, but are, however, reduced as discussed below.

Plaintiff’s failure to respond as to each of the above-described discovery requests constitutes “misuse of the discovery process” within the meaning of Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(d) (“[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery”), thereby subjecting Plaintiff to monetary sanctions. (Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) [“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process … pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct”]; Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 193 disapproved of on other grounds in Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 493.)

Defendants bring their discovery motions as separate pleadings and request $750.00 in fees/costs as to each for a total of $2,250.00. As a preliminary matter, the Court finds no reason that said motions could not have been filed jointly as part of one motion since they arise out of requests made at identical times. The Court finds the amount of sanctions requested are unreasonable given the pleadings, the complexity of the issues briefed, and the contents of the supporting declarations. Monetary sanctions are awarded as to each motion in the amount of $265.00 for attorney’s fees and $60.00 for filing fees. Defendants are awarded the combined total of $975.00 for all three motions. No appearances are required.

Murray v. McLaughlin Case No. CU21-086081

The hearing on Defendant’s motion for change of venue is continued to August 19, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6. On July 25, 2022, Defendant’s counsel submitted a declaration indicating she needs additional time to file a reply brief in response to Plaintiff’s opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel has indicated she has no opposition to a continuance for those purposes. No appearances are required.

Staves v. Larson Case No. UD21-00092

Defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment is granted in part and denied in part. For the reasons set forth more fully below, pursuant to Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) and for good cause shown, the Court sets aside the prior dismissal entered on April 18, 2022, as well as the amended default judgment entered on April 11, 2022. The previously entered default is not vacated. (Jonson v. Weinstein (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 954, 958.)

Defendant’s request for an order directing Plaintiff to immediately pay him $21,000.00 in connection with his unrelated decedent estate matter is denied as it is in excess of the Court’s jurisdiction in an unlawful detainer matter. The Court also notes its concerns as to whether the summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings would allow for damages based on theft of personal property. (See Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 1174.)

The Court has jurisdiction to hear Defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff argues as a preliminary matter that the Court is without jurisdiction to hear the present motion. Plaintiff cites to Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 581(e) and Gogri v. Jack in the Box (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255, in support of her position. Plaintiff’s argument on this point is contrary to case law and the express provisions of Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b).

The general rule that a court lacks jurisdiction to enter further orders once a matter is dismissed is not in dispute. (See Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 781, 784.) Wells affirmed a Plaintiff’s broad right to voluntarily dismiss and indicated “a trial court would thereafter lack jurisdiction to enter further orders in the dismissed action.” Plaintiff’s seemingly sweeping intimation that all jurisdiction is lost is, however, not supported in case law or statute. Case law admits of numerous exceptions to that general rule. (See e.g., Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1108 [Court retains jurisdiction for the limited purpose of costs and attorney’s fees]; Eichenbaum v. Alon (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 967, 976 [court has jurisdiction for post-judgment motion for sanctions]; Pittman v. Beck Park Apartments Ltd. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1024 [post-dismissal consideration of a vexatious litigant motion is proper]. Further, Plaintiff’s argument runs counter to the plain language of Section 473(b) under which Defendant seeks relief. That section reads in pertinent part:

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”

Relief from dismissal is expressly contemplated under Section 473(b). Thus, the Court’s consideration of Defendant’s motion is not in excess of the Court’s jurisdiction.

The dismissal entered on April 18, 2022, and the amended default judgment entered on April 11, 2022, are hereby vacated.

As a general rule, due process requires notice to the defaulting defendant of both the type and amount of the relief sought. (Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 538.) Our California Supreme Court sitting in Bank has said the following with respect to notices in the default context:

“We conclude that due process requires notice to defendants, whether they default by inaction or by willful obstruction, of the potential consequences of a refusal to pursue their defense.”

(Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 829.) The high court’s ultimate conclusion with respect to default judgments was broad reaching: “We conclude that in all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.” (Id. at 824.) Other courts have described the ceiling discussed in Greenup as jurisdictional in nature such that a contrary judgment is facially void. (Yeung v. Soos (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 576, 582 [“a default judgment is void when the damages are in excess of the damages specified in the complaint or the statement of damages”]; David S. Karton, A Law Corp v. Dougherty (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 133, 150[“section 580 is an unqualified limit on the jurisdiction of courts entering default judgments”].) It is axiomatic that a void judgment may be challenged at any time. (Yeung, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at 582.)

The Court, considering a motion to set aside under Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) is guided by the fundamental considerations of due process articulated in Greenup. Section 473(b) provides that the Court may “upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party … from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”

Here, it is undisputed by the Parties in this matter that Plaintiff filed her April 1, 2022, ex parte application to enforce the settlement agreement and enter judgment without giving notice to the Defendant (the “Application”). (Plaintiff’s Opposition, Pg. 9, Lines 13-18 [“Plaintiff notified the Court that Plaintiff did not give Defendant notice of the Ex Parte Application to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and Enter Judgment where Defendant waived notice in the Stipulation …”].) Plaintiff argues in her opposition that she was under no obligation to notice Defendant of her Application in light of the stipulation for entry of judgment filed with the Court on or about December 6, 2022 (the “Stipulation”).

The Stipulation included, in addition to approximately four (4) additional pages of recitals and terms, the following language relevant to the present motion:

“See attached 4 pgs. If all terms of this agreement are met, no writ will issue or judgment enter[ed]. If all/any terms are not met, then a writ will issue and judgment enter[ed] for immediate eviction with no further notice or hearing.”

The above-referenced four (4) pages of attachments had various recitals, provisions of the agreement, and made reference to Plaintiff paying to Defendant, on April 18, 2022, the $21,000.00 owing to him under an unrelated decedent estate matter. No part of the Stipulation contemplated that Defendant would, under any circumstances, forfeit his inheritance as a consequence of its violation. Defendant was understandably surprised by the Court’s amended judgment, and the prior stipulation waiving notice cannot be construed, as Plaintiff urges, to waive notice of a proposed amended judgment that was outside of the terms of the settlement.

For the foregoing reasons, both the prior dismissal entered on April 18, 2022, as well as the amended default judgment entered on April 11, 2022, are hereby set aside.

Alvarado v. Rees Case No. CU20-085131

In light of the tentative ruling below and to afford counsel additional time to prepare to argue the matter, the hearing on the motion for summary judgment is continued on the Court’s own motion to August 3, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6.

There are presently two matters before the Court: (1) Defendant Sugar Bowl’s (“Sugar Bowl”) motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s complaint and the three cross-complaints filed by Jason Rees (“Rees”), Nyaco, and Summit Restaurant and Bar (“Summit”); and (2) Defendant Summit’s motion for joinder in the same.

For the reasons stated below, Sugar Bowl’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiff’s operative complaint as well as all of the derivative cross-complaints against it. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are overruled in part and sustained in part. Summit’s motion for joinder is denied.

(1) Background

This cases arises from a personal injury dispute involving then-four-year-old Plaintiff, Julian Alvarado. Plaintiff alleges he was injured when struck by a vehicle while snow-sledding with his family while in parking lot owned by Sugar Bowl. (Complaint ¶¶ 5-6; Defendant’s Separate Statement of Material Facts (“SSUMF”) ¶ 2) On the date in question, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant/Cross-Defendant Rees was driving his SUV through the Sugar Bowl Parking lot and struck Plaintiff with said vehicle while Plaintiff was engaged in snow-sledding activities.

(2) Sugar Bowl’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Sugar Bowl advances three separate legal bases in support of its motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s complaint: (1) Ca. Civil Code Section 846 is an absolute bar to liability since Plaintiff was engaged in recreational activity on the subject property; (2) primary assumption of risk bars Plaintiff’s claim; and (3) no duty to warn exists because the risk was open and obvious. As to the three indemnity cross-complaints, Sugar Bowl moves for summary judgment on the basis that liability is wholly derivative and a grant of summary judgment as to the substantive causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint on one or more of the grounds listed above precludes liability on an indemnity basis.

As to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court has not yet reached a tentative on whether Section 846’s recreational use immunity bars Plaintiff’s claims and invites further argument from counsel as indicated below. As to the second claim, the Court agrees that primary assumption of risk bar Plaintiff’s claims and would grant Sugar Bowl’s motion on that basis. And as to the claim that summary judgment should be granted based on the risk being “open and obvious,” the Court is not persuaded and does not grant the motion on that basis. As to the indemnity cross-complaints, they are wholly derivative – being based on Sugar Bowl’s liability on Plaintiff’s primary causes of action. As such, Sugar Bowl’s motion for summary judgment is also granted as to Rees’s, Nyaco’s, and Summit’s cross-complaints.

A. Does recreational use immunity under Ca. Civil Code § 846 bars Plaintiff’s claims against Sugar Bowl?

“Section 846 establishes limited liability on the part of a private landowner for injuries sustained by another from recreational use of the land.” (Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1099.) There are two elements that operate as a precondition to this immunity and some exceptions to the rule. Section 846 reads in pertinent part:

“(a) An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of structures, or activities on those premises to persons entering for a recreational purpose, except as provided in this section.”

The Ornelas court distills the immunity preconditions described above as follows: (1) the defendant must be the owner or the estate or other interest in real property, whether it be possessory or nonpossessory; and (2) the plaintiff’s injury resulted from the “entry or use [of the ‘premises’] for any recreational purposes.” (Ornelas, supra, 4 Cal.4th at 1100.)

Where the above preconditions are established, exceptions to this express limitation on liability exist under the following conditions: (1) the landowner “willfully or maliciously fails to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity”; (2) permission to enter for a recreational purpose “is granted for a consideration”; or (3) “the landowner expressly invites rather than merely permits the user to come on the premises.” (Id. at 1099-1100; Ca. Civil Code § 846(d).)

We examine first the preconditions.

i. Despite Plaintiff’s contentions, there is no reasonable factual dispute as to the two required preconditions for immunity.

It is effectively undisputed that Plaintiff sustained his injuries while in the parking lot of 22002 Donner Pass Road, Soda Springs, California (hereafter the “DSL parking lot”) on December 31, 2015, and that the DSL parking lot is owned by Sugar Bowl. (SSUMF ¶¶ 1-2; 10; 18-22.) Plaintiff indicates there is a dispute as to who owns the land in question, stating “[i]t is not clear who owns the land in question” in response to both SSUMF ¶ 1 and 10. Plaintiff points the Court to the Deposition of Stewart Wells contained in counsel’s declaration in opposition, whose referenced statements do not speak to a dispute as to ownership of the DSL lot, but instead, at most, only to uncertainty as to the precise boundaries between Nyaco and Sugar Bowl’s property. (Declaration of Gail Richardson, Exhibit 3, Deposition of Stewart Wells at p. 27:21-25; 28-4-10; see also Plaintiff’s UMF ¶ 55, citing to the same deposition transcript passages.)

SSUMF ¶ 1 clearly defines 22002 Donner Pass Road, Soda Springs, California as the DSL Parking Lot; Plaintiff does not contest Defendant’s definition of that address as such. And in SSUMF ¶ 2, the DSL parking lot is identified as being owned by Sugar Bowl; Plaintiff offers no dispute to SSUMF ¶ 2. Further, Plaintiff’s own complaint describes him as being present in the DSL parking lot on the date of the incident and states, that at the same time, Plaintiff was struck by Rees. (Complaint, Pg. 2 ¶¶ 5-6.)

Plaintiff nonetheless argues that “there is a key factual dispute” because it is “not clear on whose property this incident actually occurred.” (Plaintiff’s Opposition, Pg. 5, Lines 12-17.) Counsel then argues that it is entirely possible that Plaintiff was on both properties during the subject incident; the second property being the gas station property located next to the DSL parking lot. (Id. at Pg. 10, Lines 14-26; UMF ¶ 49.) Even if this latter contention were true, that would not abrogate the protections Section 846 offers Sugar Bowl; it is effectively irrelevant to the Court’s determination here. Counsel cites to no case for the proposition that an accident occurring on two separate properties while being used for recreational purposes somehow removes the protections at issue.

Further, as pointed out by Defendant in its Reply brief, Plaintiff’s theory of liability as to Sugar Bowl is effectively that it owed a duty to Plaintiff on its property and failed to uphold that duty. Such duty can only arise if there is a nexus to Sugar Bowl. Rees was not an employee, invitee, or other Sugar Bowl affiliated individual, nor was one in involved. (SSUMF ¶ 26.) Plaintiff’s theory of liability must be predicated on Sugar Bowl’s ownership of the property and a failure to uphold a duty it thereby owed Plaintiff. Here, Plaintiff cannot defend against Sugar Bowl’s motion by arguing there is a dispute as to who owns the property in the manner it does. If Sugar Bowl owns the property, then Section 846 potentially applies. If it doesn’t (the other option implied by Plaintiff), then no Section 846 analysis is even necessary as there is no coherent alternate theory for Sugar Bowl’s liability to Plaintiff.

The second precondition for Section 846 is that the Plaintiff’s injury must have resulted from the entry or use of the premises for any “recreational purpose.” Sledding clearly falls under the ambit of “recreational activity” cognizable under Section 846 and this is not disputed by either party. Both the statute and Ornelas command the same conclusion. (See id. at subdivision (b); Ornelas, supra, 4 Cal.4th at 1100-1102 [child playing with hand-held toy near old farm equipment satisfies Section 846].)

Plaintiff argues that it is unclear whether Plaintiff “entered Sugar Bowl’s property for the purpose of recreation.” (Plaintiff’s Opposition, Pg. 10, Lines 5-21.) The protections under Section 846 apply when injured parties enter or use the premises for “any recreational purposes.” (Ornelas, supra, 4 Cal.4th at 1100.) Thus, whether Plaintiff initially entered on another property or first entered for a non-recreational purpose is irrelevant so long as he used Sugar Bowl’s property for recreational purposes and the injury resulted during such time.

Again, Plaintiff’s own complaint describes him as being present in the DSL parking lot on the date of the incident and states that, at the time present, he was struck by Rees. (Complaint, Pg. 2 ¶¶ 5-6.) That the accident occurred while Plaintiff was sledding on DSL is not in reasonable dispute. (SSUMF ¶¶ 1-2; 10; 18-22 [accident occurred in the DSL parking lot when Plaintiff was struck by Rees and Plaintiff was found with his sled contemporaneously with the accident].) Further in SSUMF ¶ 27, Defendant contends, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that it had no knowledge that Plaintiff and his family came into the DSL parking lot for snow-play activities. Inherent in that factual concession by Plaintiff is that he was on the DSL parking lot for snow-play activities. If Plaintiff disputed that contention, it should have indicated as much as it did elsewhere. (See also SSUMF ¶ 24; UMF ¶¶ 45-48 [Defendant offers that Sugar Bowl did not invite Plaintiff or his parents onto DSL property and Plaintiff only disputes that fact as to his mother, who is admitted in UMF ¶¶ 45-48 to have remained in the family car before the incident occurred].)

ii. Neither of the first two exceptions to Section 846’s protections apply here.

As discussed above, there are three exceptions to the express limitation on liability. The first two exceptions require little comment.

Did Sugar Bowl grant permission for Plaintiff to enter for “consideration”? No; the evidentiary record does not support this contention and Plaintiff does not dispute this in its response to the SSUMF. (SSUMF ¶ 25.) Plaintiff’s argument in a footnote that some form of cognizable non-traditional consideration existed here by virtue of Summit’s lease with Sugar Bowl is unpersuasive as there is no indication Summit actually invited Plaintiff onto the premises or even that he was there to patronize Summit’s business.

Second, was Plaintiff expressly invited onto the premises by Sugar Bowl? No; there is absolutely no dispute on this point. (SSUMF ¶¶ 27 [undisputed that Sugar Bowl did not know that Plaintiff and his family were using the DSL parking lot for snow play activities]; 24 [undisputed that Sugar Bowl did not invite either Plaintiff or his father onto the DSL property]. Mother entered the DSL parking lot only sometime after the accident. (UMF ¶¶ 45-48.)

iii. The application of the willful misconduct exception.

The more difficult question is whether the final potential exception to Section 846 applies. Did Sugar Bowl “willful[ly] or malicious[ly] fail[] to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity”? (See Ca. Civil Code § 846(d)(1).) The type of “willful or malicious” disregard at issue here refers to an actor who “has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow.” (Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery (1998) 19 Cal.4th 714, 728, overruled on other grounds, Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 827, 853, fn. 19.)

As the court explains in Manuel v. Pacific Gas & Electronic Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 927, 939, “willful and [malicious] misconduct is separate and distinct from negligence” and even gross negligence. “[W]illful misconduct is not marked by a mere absence of care.” (Id. at 939-940.) Willful misconduct involves a “more positive intent actually to harm another or to do an act with a positive, active, and absolute disregard of its consequences.” (Id. at 940.)

In raising this potential exception to Section 846, it is incumbent upon Plaintiff to “specify the particular acts upon which the willful misconduct of [Sugar Bowl] is charged.” (Charpentier v. Von Geldern (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 101, 114 [conclusory allegations in the pleading are insufficient]; Bartless v. Jackson (1936 13 Cal.App.3d 435, 437.) A defendant’s summary judgment motion must by necessity include a test of the sufficiency of the complaint, “and is, in effect, a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Charpentier, supra, 191 Cal.App.3d at 114.) Chapentier, like Manuel, supra, notes that there must be specific facts establishing three elements in this type of circumstance: (1) knowledge of the peril; (2) knowledge of the probability of injury; and (3) conscious failure to act to avoid the peril. (Charpentier, supra, 191 Cal.App.3d at 113; Manual, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at 945; see also Morgan v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1012.) Plaintiff’s pleadings are silent on this particular point; no allegations are offered in the complaint that any or all defendants acted with the requisite willful and malicious conduct.

Plaintiff points out that that the parking lot was used by sledders and that Sugar Bowl knew of such use but failed to include any cautionary signs. (Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) ¶¶ 59-60.) Plaintiff concedes that Sugar Bowl did not know Plaintiff and his family were using its property for snow-play activities. (SSUMF ¶ 27.) Sugar Bowl counters that it was its regular practice to include such signs. (SSUMF ¶¶ 28.) Plaintiff further contends that Sugar Bowl was aware that cars and semi-trucks used the subject lot. (UMF ¶¶ 58-62; 64-66.) Plaintiff ultimately argues that Sugar Bowl “knew a sledding accident was highly probable” because the resort knew the area was popular for sledding, knew that vehicles used the parking lot, and failed to take remedial action or post signs.

On the other hand, Plaintiff offers as an undisputed set of facts that no vehicles drove through the area where the children were playing prior to the subject incident and notes that when the children were sledding down the snowbank, they did so into the parking lot in an area that was approximately 30 to 40 feet away from any parked cars. (UMF ¶¶ 39-40.) Further, to gain access to Sugar Bowl property where the accident occurred, Plaintiff had to climb a 12-foot-high snow berm. (SSUMF ¶ 8-9.) And, of note, nothing in the record indicates the existence of a prior accident, injury, or incident related to these activities on Sugar Bowl’s property, or the resort’s knowledge thereof. (See Lostritto, supra, 73 Cal.App.3d at 745 [probability of injury and prior injuries occurring are relevant considerations in looking at all the circumstances].)

The question appears to boil down to this: Does knowledge by Sugar Bowl that some people used an operational parking lot for sledding (with no knowledge of incidents related thereto), combined with the resort’s alleged failure to take remedial action, constitute willful and malicious misconduct? The Court has not presently reached a tentative view and invites further argument from the parties.

B. Primary assumption of risk doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claims against Sugar Bowl.

Sugar Bowl’s second claim is based on primary assumption of risk doctrine. The doctrine for our present purposes can be summed up as follows:

“In cases involving 'primary assumption of risk'—where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury—the doctrine continues to operate as a complete bar to the plaintiff's recovery.”

(Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 456.) The Court went on to say where the parties involved are “independent actors, separately pursuing their own activities—a defendant generally has no duty to avoid increasing the risks inherent in a plaintiff’s activity.” (Id. at 482.)

As a threshold consideration, we must consider whether the doctrine is, as a matter of law, applicable to the act of snow sledding. Plaintiff insists the doctrine categorically does not apply to a four-year-old snow sledding and that it only applies to the very “limited context of active sports.” (Plaintiff’s Opposition, Pg. 13, Lines 15-19.) (Emphasis original.) Sugar Bowl insists the doctrine is far broader and includes “all recreational activities involving inherent risks.” (Sugar Bowl’s Reply Memorandum, Pg. 5, Lines 9-20.) (Emphasis original.)

In Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1148, our California Supreme Court took up the issue and rejected the strict interpretation offered by the Plaintiff in our present case. It stated:

“[T]he primary assumption of risk doctrine is not limited to activities classified as sports, but applies as well to other recreational activities ‘involving an inherent risk of injury to voluntary participants ... where the risk cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity.’ [Citations omitted.]

The primary assumption of risk doctrine rests on a straightforward policy foundation: the need to avoid chilling vigorous participation in or sponsorship of recreational activities by imposing a tort duty to eliminate or reduce the risks of harm inherent in those activities. It operates on the premise that imposing such a legal duty ‘would work a basic alteration—or cause abandonment’ of the activity.”

(Id. at 1156). As examples of the doctrine in action, the Nalwa court presents numerous examples: (1) recognizing tort liability for pitchers hitting batters in the game of baseball would deter “essential part of the sport” (Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 148, 165); (2) golfer liability for missed hits would “deter players from enjoying the sport” (Dilger v. Moyles (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1455); and imposing tort liability for negligence in towing water-skiers might have “a generally deleterious effect on the nature of the sport of waterskiing as a whole.” (Ford v. Gouin (1992) 3 Cal.4th 339, 345.) In the context of that discussion, the Nalwa court remarked that the “doctrine’s parameters should be drawn according to that goal.” (Nalwa, supra, 55 Cal.4th at 1157.) Specifically that imposition of tort liability should not be occasioned where it would work “a basic alteration—or cause abandonment” of the activity. (Id. at 1156.)

Defendant insists, and the Court agrees, that snow sledding is an activity that is properly within the doctrine of primary assumption of risk as defined by the court in Nalwa. It falls within the ambit of a recreational activity involving inherent risks that cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity.

But the analysis in the present case is not perfectly analogous to those discussed above. The difference flows from the lack of relationship between the Plaintiff and Sugar Bowl in this instance. The case of Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 456, cited above, is illustrative.

In Parsons, the California Supreme Court dealt with the issue of primary assumption of risk in the context of a case where a garbage truck driver drove past a horseback rider. The rider was thrown from the horse and suffered injuries. The high court noted that the two did not stand in any sort of organized relationship with one another. Under these types circumstances, the Parsons court concluded “defendants generally [do not] owe a duty not to increase the risk inherent in whatever activity plaintiffs happen to be pursuing.” (Id. at 482.)

Another case germane to the discussion is Calhoon v. Lewis (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 108. Calhoon is a primary assumption of risk case that involved a skateboarder who injured himself on a homeowner’s property by virtue of falling on a pipe on their property. The court reasoned that the Calhoon homeowners stood in an analogous position to the truck driver in Parsons. It noted that the homeowners neither held out their driveway as a safe place to skateboard or that it was an appropriate place to do so. Calhoon then went on to state:

“Whereas it would be reasonable to require a skateboarding park owner to take steps to minimize the risks of skateboarding injuries, it would not be reasonable to require the same steps of residential property owners. Absent facts showing a residential property owner is holding out his or her property for skateboarding use, an owner does not have the duty to refrain from increasing risks to a skateboarder.”

(Id. at 117-118.) Here, there is nothing in the evidentiary record to suggest that Sugar Bowl encouraged or otherwise held out the DSL parking lot as a place for sledding use. The evidence on that point is, when viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, that Sugar Bowl was aware that people utilized the area for sledding. Moreover, it is undisputed that Sugar Bowl did not know Plaintiff and his family were using the DSL parking lot for said activities. (SSUMF ¶ 27.) Whereas it would be reasonable perhaps to require a sledding park owner to take steps to minimize the risks of sledding, it would not be reasonable to require the same steps of a ski resort in connection with a parking lot.

Sugar Bowl suggests that the Court must analyze the question of whether there is “material evidence that Sugar Bowl did something to unreasonably increase the inherent risks of the activity.” (Sugar Bowl’s Reply Memorandum, Pg. 5, Lines 24-28.) The Court is not confident that analysis is required given Parsons and Calhoon. Again, it is clear that Plaintiff and Sugar Bowl did not stand in the type of relationship required to impose a duty on Sugar Bowl to refrain from increasing the risks to Plaintiff.

Given all of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk bars Plaintiff’s claims against Sugar Bowl.

C. There is a reasonable factual dispute on the question of “open and obvious” risk.

Sugar Bowl also argues that the danger was so open and obvious that it had no duty to warn Plaintiff of that risk. The exception provides that “if a danger is so obvious that a person could reasonably be expected to see it, the condition itself serves as a warning, and the landowner is under no further duty to remedy or warn of that condition.” (Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 438, 447; Zuniga v. Cherry Avenue Auction, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 980, 993-994.)

Plaintiff argues that the “open and obvious [doctrine] has been subsumed into comparative negligence.” Plaintiff seems to insist that the doctrine of “open and obvious” danger is categorically an improper subject of a motion for summary judgment. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, Pg. 16, Lines 3-10, citing Beauchamp v. Los Gatos Golf Course (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 20.) Defendant counters that this is an improper rendering of Beauchamp and insists its claim is proper for consideration under a motion for summary judgment.

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s interpretation of Beauchamp to the extent he suggests that the “open and obvious” doctrine cannot serve as a basis for a summary judgment. Numerous cases have applied this doctrine in this context. (See e.g., Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 438 [considering and upholding the trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on the “open and obvious” doctrine].)

Nonetheless, the Court, having considered Sugar Bowl’s contentions on this point, finds that a reasonable factual dispute exists as to whether the risk at issue in this case was “open and obvious.” In its UMF, Plaintiff offers that there were no cars within 30-40 feet of the sledding area, and that no vehicles drove through the area while the children were playing. (UMF ¶ 39-40.) Plaintiff further claims that there are no signs in the area warning the public against sledding activities. (UMF ¶ 60.) Sugar Bowl counters that it was its regular practice to erect warning signs alerting the public that the DSL parking lot was private and not to be used by the public. (SSUMF ¶ 28.)

Given the foregoing, there do appear to be legitimate factual issues to be decided by a jury as to the “open and obvious” doctrine. Sugar Bowl’s motion is denied on this basis.

D. Sugar Bowl’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to the three derivative cross-complaints.

When a court sustains a motion for summary judgment, or otherwise makes a finding that a defendant has no liability to an injured plaintiff, such provides a complete defense to a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity. (Allis-Chalmer Corp. v. Superior Court (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1155; see also Children’s Hosp. v. Sedgwick (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1780 [previous finding that a party is not at fault precludes an action in equitable indemnity action by a party that settled with plaintiff in the previous lawsuit before it reached judgment].)

The Allis-Chalmer court confirmed that where a defendant is not jointly and severally liable to a plaintiff, it cannot be liable on a cause of action for indemnity brought by another defendant by means of a cross-complaint. (Allis-Chalmer, supra, 168 Cal.App.3d at 1158-1159).

The Court, having granted Sugar Bowl’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s complaint, must also grant it as to the derivative cross-complaints, which by necessity must fall under the rationale articulated by the court in Allis-Chalmer. There is nothing about the indemnity cross-complaints in the present matter that compels a different conclusion and Sugar Bowl’s motion is granted as to Rees’s, Nyaco’s, and Summit’s cross-complaints.

(3) Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections are Sustained in Part and Overruled in Part

Plaintiff objects to two statements made in Sugar Bowl’s SSUMF, specifically SSUSM ¶¶ 11 and 29. As to both statements, Plaintiff objects on identical bases, to wit: that the statement is based on an improper conclusion, improper speculation, “insufficient foundation to qualify as an expert,” and as an improper lay witness opinion. (Ca. Evidence Code §§ 801, 803, 702, 820, 801, and 800.) Plaintiff’s objection as to SSUMF ¶ 29 is overruled. Plaintiff’s objection SSUMF ¶ 11 is sustained in part.

SSUMF ¶ 11 reads as follows:

“While Hector Alvarado claims that the SUV ran over [Plaintiff’s] head, that is unlikely given that Julian was walking shortly after the incident, was treated in the emergency department and promptly released to his parents, and he appeared smiling and happy at his January 2016 doctor’s appointment. Hector Alvarado testified that Julian Alvarado was released from the emergency department the same day as the incident, and joined the family at their hotel in Reno over the New Year’s holiday.”

As to the contention that it is “unlikely [the SUV ran over Plaintiff’s head] given that Julian was walking shortly after the incident [and for the other reasons stated],” that statement lacks foundation and constitutes improper lay witness opinion. The objections on those grounds are sustained. The objections to the balance of SSUMF ¶ 11 (concerning Hector Alvarado’s testimony that Plaintiff was released from the emergency and joined the family) is overruled.

(4) Summit’s Motion for Joinder in Sugar Bowl’s Motion for Summary Judgment

As noted above, Summit joins in Sugar Bowl’s motion for summary judgment by notice of joinder and joinder motion. It relies on the identical bases advanced by Sugar Bowl and incorporates Sugar Bowl’s SSUMF ¶¶ 1-13; 15-23; and 28-30. Notably, Summit does not provide its own separate statement of material facts. This procedural failure is dispositive.

Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(b)(1) provides that a motion for summary judgment “shall be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, [etc.]” and also includes the following pertinent language:

“The supporting papers shall include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed. […] The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.”

While a party can join in another party’s motion for summary judgment, they must nevertheless still comply with the other substantive portions of Section 437c identified above, specifically inclusion of a separate statement of undisputed material facts. (Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 635-636). The Frazee court dealt with a situation where one set of parties properly filed a motion for summary judgment supported with a separate statement. A separate group of parties filed a “simple notice of joinder in the motion, but did not file their own separate statement.” (Id. at 636.) The court stated: “While this form of joinder may be sufficient for some purposes [citations omitted], it is not sufficient for purposes of the summary judgment statute.” The court, pointing to the clear language of the statute, stated: “Each moving party shall support their motion for summary judgment with a separate statement.” (Id., emphasis added.)

Given the foregoing, Summit’s motion is denied. The Court notes that during the pendency of Sugar Bowl’s motion and Summit’s joinder, Plaintiff has, effective July 11, 2022, dismissed Summit from the lawsuit with prejudice.

THE COURT HAS CREATED A NEW EMAIL ADDRESS FOR REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT. PLEASE SEE BELOW.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. All persons, two years of age and older, ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO wear a face covering. (See Executive Order 205).

You may also appear via VIDEO by arranging A REMOTE appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

This is the Court’s tentative ruling. 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 before the hearing. If you do not so notify the parties and court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling. Any argument IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IS limited to TEN MINUTES PER SIDE. aNY ARGUMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE JOINDER IS LIMITED TO five minutes PER SIDE. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. 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. Local Rule 10.00.3B.

Affordable Urban Living v. Brogie et al Case No. CL0000014

The court has been advised by the clerk that notice of the June 23, 2022 decision by Judge Pro Tem Bradrick vacating the default and default judgments as to both Brian and Rachel Brogie was solely given to the Sheriff, not to Plaintiff. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff’s July 8, 2022 motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 is deemed timely filed. That motion is granted as to Defendant Brian Brogie. Plaintiff was not properly noticed of Defendant Brian Brogie’s June 21, 2022 motion to set aside the default and judgment. As such, the June 23, 2022 order will be vacated as to this Defendant. Defendant Brian Brogie’s answer to the complaint filed the same day is stricken.

Defendant Rachel Brogie did not join Defendant Brian Brogie’s June 21, 2022 motion and no relief was sought on her behalf. That being the case, it appears that relief should not have been granted to her. That said, because the default and default judgment were vacated, Defendant Rachel Brogie is entitled to notice of the current motion relating to her interests before the court can act upon Plaintiff’s request. The court continues the motion as to this defendant until August 26, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6. Plaintiff must properly serve the instant motion on Defendant Rachel Brogie no later than August 12, 2022 and provide notice to her that it will be heard on the date and time indicated. No appearances are required.

THE COURT HAS CREATED A NEW EMAIL ADDRESS FOR REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT. PLEASE SEE BELOW.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. All persons, two years of age and older, ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO wear a face covering. (See Executive Order 205).

You may also appear via VIDEO by arranging A REMOTE appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

This is the Court’s tentative ruling. 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 before the hearing. If you do not so notify the parties and court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling. Any argument is limited to five minutes. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. 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. Local Rule 10.00.3B.

Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

July 22, 2022 Dept. 6

If a tentative ruling is not issued below for a matter which you believe should be on calendar, please contact OA@nccourt.net.

THE COURT HAS CREATED A NEW EMAIL ADDRESS FOR REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT. PLEASE SEE BELOW.

Elder v. Oyung Case No. CL19-084361

No appearances are required. The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion and the pre-trial conference are both continued on the Court’s own motion to July 29, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Poomsawai v. Fox et al Case No. CU19-084264

As explained below, Plaintiff’s motion for award of pre-judgment interest is granted as prayed in the amount of $41,655.55. No appearances are required.

The Court notes that Defendants, in their opposition to the motion, do not dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to pre-judgment interest under Ca. Civil Code Section 3287(a). Defendants concede, within the meaning of Section 3287(a), that the damages are “certain[] or capable of being made certain by calculation[.]” And, further, they do not dispute the date of breach or the applicable rate of interest (10%) as contained in Section 3289. Defendant’s sole contention in their opposition is that accretion of pre-judgment interest should effectively be tolled for a fourteen and one-half month period, between February 1, 2021, when trial was set and April 19, 2022, when jury trial commenced, due to trial delays attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Defendants offer no statute or case law in support of their proposition, instead arguing summarily only that “these unique circumstances … constitute good cause” to order aforesaid relief. The Court can find no case in support of the proposition that Defendants are entitled to a tolling of pre-judgment due to delays attributable to delays in the availability of a trial court. Further, there is no indication in the record that Plaintiffs unduly delayed prosecution of this matter as a litigation or other tactic such that denial or reduction of pre-judgment interest might be cognizable. (See General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. (1983) 461 U.S. 648; see also see also Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelecs Int’l, Inc. (Fed. Cir 2001) 246 F.3d 1336, 1361-1362 [pre-judgment interest denied where evidence supported claim that delay of two years was a litigation tactic].

In this situation, the Court is obligated to impose pre-judgment interest in the full amount requested by Plaintiffs. (Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 43 [court has no discretion and must award pre-judgment interest upon request “from the first day there exists both a breach and a liquidated claim”].) Even assuming the Court had the discretion to deny interest for good cause, the Court is not persuaded good cause is presented herein. First, there has been no showing that Defendants demanded an immediate trial or opposed continuances of any of the trial dates. Second, there was not an extraordinary delay in bringing this matter to trial. The original trial date selected was December 15, 2020; the ultimate trial date was April 19, 2022.

Gopal v. Luther Case No. CU21-085321

The hearing on the order to show cause is continued to August 26, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that Defendants recently filed an appeal with respect to their previously denied motion to compel arbitration. Defendants have concurrently filed a notice of stay and therein indicate that said appeal triggers an automatic stay of the proceedings pursuant to Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 916(a).

Counsel for both parties are ordered to provide supplemental briefing on the issue of the effect of any stay on this Court’s ability to hear and consider the preliminary injunction at issue during the pendency of the appeal. All briefing is to be filed no later than August 12, 2022. No appearances are required.

Koslin et al v. GV Development Case No. CU21-085797

The hearing on Defendant Smith’s demurrer is continued to August 12, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6 to be heard concurrently with Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ request to continue the demurrer as described above is noted and unopposed by Defendant Smith in his reply brief. No appearances are required.

In re William H. Laws Trust Case No. P22-17011

Counsel for Petitioners is ordered to file with the Court no later than July 29, 2022, a complete copy of the subpoena duces tecum at issue, including all attachments, instructions, other documents served on Deponent in connection with the request, and particularly any documents describing the scope of documents to be provided under the subpoena. Presently, Petitioners’ moving papers include only the notice to consumer, an unexecuted proof of service, “Attachment 3,” and a summary of service.

Deponent appears to argue in connection with this matter that she has no documents responsive to Petitioners’ request. The Court notes that Deponent does not appear to have executed and/or provided the required affidavit attesting to such. Deponent is therefore ordered no later than July 29, 2022, to execute, file with the Court, and serve on opposing counsel, an affidavit under Ca. Evidence Code Section 1561 attesting to the status of records in her possession.

Counsel for Petitioners and Deponent are further ordered to meet and confer before the next hearing to discuss possible informal resolution of this discovery dispute. The motion is continued for hearing until August 5, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. No appearances are required.

Kiggins v. Cirinos et al Case No. CU21-085875

The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion is continued on the Court’s own motion to August 19, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes Defendant submitted digital media in connection with his opposition, which purportedly contains videos from the Plaintiff’s deposition. The Court has been unable to review the videos on the provided digital media device and requires Defendants, if they would like the Court to consider such as part of its opposition, to submit them in an alternate digital media format, e.g., USB storage device. Defendant shall re-submit its digital media exhibits to the Court no later than August 5, 2022. No appearances are required.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. All persons, two years of age and older, ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO wear a face covering. (See Executive Order 205).

You may appear via VIDEO by arranging such ZOOM appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

This is the Court’s tentative ruling. 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 before the hearing. If you do not so notify the parties and court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling. Any argument is limited to five minutes. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. 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. Local Rule 10.00.3B.

Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

July 15, 2022 Dept. 6

If a tentative ruling is not issued below for a matter which you believe should be on calendar, please contact OA@nccourt.net.

THE COURT HAS CREATED A NEW EMAIL ADDRESS FOR REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT. PLEASE SEE BELOW.

In Re Wright, Laurel Case No. CU0000043

Based on the stipulation of the parties, the hearing is continued to August 5, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6; this date will be for a status only. Pursuant to Ca. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5(a), the Court orders Respondent to file with the Court a copy of the record of proceedings of the administrative hearing no later than August 5, 2022. Respondent is to deliver a copy of said record to Petitioner by the same date.

The parties shall meet and confer regarding an acceptable briefing schedule and hearing date and advise the Court of the same prior to the status hearing on August 5, 2022. All briefing must be submitted at least three (3) weeks prior to the scheduled hearing date. The Court specifically requests the parties provide briefing as to the Court’s applicable standard of review for the issues raised in the writ.

Hartfield v. Tintle Case No. CU0000067

Defendant’s (“Tintle”) Anti-SLAPP motion to strike Plaintiff’s (“Hartfield”) entire complaint is granted as prayed. Plaintiff’s entire complaint is hereby stricken without leave to amend. (Mobile Med Servs. for Physicians & Advanced Practice Nurses, Inc. v. Rajaram (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 164.) Defendant’s motion to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant is further granted as prayed. No appearances are required.

Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion:

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff claims in his opposition that the public interest exception is applicable to the present case. The Court is not persuaded. To briefly restate the doctrine, Anti-SLAPP protections are not available for cases involving: (1) enforcement actions brought in the name of the People of the State of California; (2) actions brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public; and (3) actions involving commercial speech. The burden of proof is on the proponent of the exemption, i.e., the party opposing the motion. (Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 22.) Where one of these exceptions applies, the Court need not even get to its customary two-pronged analysis, discussed further, infra.

The public interest exception raised by Hartfield requires him to prove all of the following: (1) the cause of action is brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public; (2) he does not seek relief that is “greater than or different from” the relief sought for the general public; (3) the action, if successful, would enforce an important right affecting the public interest; and (4) private enforcement is necessary and places a disproportionate financial burden on plaintiff in relation to plaintiff’s stake in the matter. (Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17.) No such showing has been made.

Next, the Court must consider Hartfield’s contention that Tintle is precluded from bringing her Anti-SLAPP motion by virtue of her conduct being illegal. Again, Hartfield’s argument here is without support.

In short, Hartfield’s argument flows from the California Supreme Court’s case in Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299. There, the Court established that where a defendant either: (1) concedes his or her conduct is illegal as a matter of law or (2) the evidence “conclusively establishes” such, he or she is precluded as a matter of law from using the Anti-SLAPP statute. (Id. at 321.) Tintle certainly does not concede any such misconduct and there is no conclusive proof in the record to establish such facial illegality.

The Court must now address the core of the Anti-SLAPP analysis, to wit: the two-pronged approach involving the following questions: (1) has Tintle made a prima facie showing that the acts that are subject to the plaintiff’s claims “arise from” protected activities; and (2) based on competent and admissible evidence, has Hartfield established that his claim has at least “minimal merit”? (Bonni v. St Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995, 1009.)

To make its determinations, the court must consider the pleadings, as well as the supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. (Ca. Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(b)(2).) The Court is limited only to evidence that would otherwise be admissible at trial. (Evans v. Unkow (1995) 38 Cal.Appp.4th 1490, 1497.) It must also accept as true the evidence favorable to plaintiff. (Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 291.)

The Two-Part Anti-SLAPP Analysis:

The Bonni Court describes the trial court’s role in the first prong as “consider[ing] the elements of the challenged claim and what actions by the defendant supply those elements and consequently form the basis for liability.” (Bonni, supra, 11 Cal.5th at 1009.) It goes on to state: “The defendant’s burden is to identify what acts each challenged claim rests on and to show how those acts are protected under a statutorily defined category of protected activity.” (Id.; see Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, 884.) Those acts underlying the claim for purposes of an Anti-SLAPP motion are “determined from the plaintiffs’ allegations.” (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Project CBD (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 883 [court may not “insert into a pleading claims for relief based on allegations of activities plaintiffs simply have not identified”]; Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 396.)

Here, Defendant has made her threshold showing that the claim or claims in Plaintiff’s complaint are based on protected activity. Given this threshold showing, the Court moves then to the second prong of the analysis.

As to the second prong, the Court looks to whether Hartfield’s complaint demonstrates “minimal merit” based on competent and admissible evidence. (Bonni v. St Joseph Health System, supra, 11 Cal.5th at 1009.) The Court cannot, upon review of the pleadings, conclude that Hartfield has made the required showing. As Plaintiff’s own pleadings readily concede, and as evidenced by Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff has already brought and litigated similar factual claims based on the same transaction in a prior, recent lawsuit against the same Defendant. (See Nevada County Superior Court Case No. CU21-085588.)

The Court takes judicial notice of its own findings and records in that case and notes that Plaintiff dismissed his lawsuit during the pendency of Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion. Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion was subsequently granted on the merits pursuant to the holding in Moore v. Liu (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 745. That decision on the merits in the former case represents a final determination in the matter sufficient for issue preclusion to apply in this case. (Colebrook v. CIT Bank (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 259 [res judicata prohibits re-litigation of the same issues already decided by the same parties in an earlier lawsuit and applies even where plaintiff brought new factual and legal issues involving the same seeking to vindicate the same “primary right”].) To hold otherwise would frustrate the entire purpose of the Anti-SLAPP statutes and allow a Plaintiff to repeatedly dismiss and refile meritless claims. (See Simmons v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1068.)

In addition, it is likely Hartfield’s complaint in the present case fails to successfully plead even the basic elements of an enforceable contract. Ca. Civil Code Section 1550 defines the essential elements of a contract: (1) parties capable of contracting; (2) consent; (3) a lawful object; and (4) a sufficient cause or consideration. (See Ca. Civil Code §§ 1595-1596 [the object is the thing which it is agreed and must be lawful; § 1608 [“If any part of a single consideration for one or more objections, or of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the entire contract is void”].) The contract or contracts at issue appear on their face to compel a domestic violence victim, Tintle, for whom a criminal protective order has been issued, to continue in a romantic relationship or to otherwise mandate contact with her abuser for the purposes of child custody. Such an agreement is facially unlawful as contrary to good morals and public policy and is unenforceable. (Yoo v. Jho (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1255 [“party to an illegal contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objects carried out”]; see also Fellom v. Adams (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 855, 863 [“when the evidence shows that the plaintiff in substance seeks to enforce an illegal contract … the court has both the power and duty to ascertain the true facts in order that it may not unwittingly lend its assistance to the consummation or encouragement of what public policy forbids”].)

Thus, for both of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the required minimal merit.

Defendant’s Vexatious Litigant Motion:

Defendant’s request to deem Plaintiff a “vexatious litigant” is well taken. As such, Defendant’s motion to deem Plaintiff a vexatious litigant is granted as prayed.

Under Ca. Code of Civil Procedure Section 391(b)(2), a “vexatious litigant” includes a person who:

“After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, “repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propia persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.”

As discussed above, Plaintiff brought similar, if not nearly identical claims in Nevada County Superior Court Case No. CU21-085588. Plaintiff dismissed that lawsuit voluntarily during the pendency of Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion, and ultimately, the Anti-SLAPP motion was granted against Plaintiff. At this juncture, Plaintiff is attempting to re-litigate the controversy and claims against Defendant that were determined or concluded by the final determination in the previous case.

Plaintiff, of course, dismissed that lawsuit voluntarily during the pendency of Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff’s dismissal, however, does not affect the merits of the vexatious litigant motion. Case law is clear that such a voluntary dismissal does not preclude application of vexatious litigant statute for failure of the matter to be “finally determined.” (Tokerud v. Capitolbank Sacramento (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 775, 779 [holding that a voluntarily dismissed action can be counted for purposes of the vexatious litigant statute].)

Dougan v. Sierra Nevada Hospital et al Case No. CU18-083371

The Court intends to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for trial preference pursuant to Ca. Code of Civil Procedure Section 36(a), but the stipulated date proposed in the motion is a Court holiday. Appearances are required by counsel for all parties to discuss and select a date for the commencement of trial commensurate with Section 36.

Alvarado v. Rees Case No. CU20-085131

No appearances are required. The hearing on the motion for summary judgment is continued on the Court’s own motion to July 29, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

AFT v. Smith et al Case No. CU21-085699

The Court has executed the stipulation and order to file the second amended cross-complaint submitted by Cross-Complainant Felley and Cross-Defendants AFT and DFI on or about July 1, 2022. Cross-complainant is directed to file its second-amended cross-complaint as provided for in the stipulated order. The demurrer is hereby taken off calendar pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. All persons, two years of age and older, ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO wear a face covering. (See Executive Order 205).

You may appear via VIDEO by arranging such ZOOM appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

This is the Court’s tentative ruling. 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 before the hearing. If you do not so notify the parties and court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling. Any argument is limited to five minutes. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. 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. Local Rule 10.00.3B.

Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

July 8, 2022 :

If a tentative ruling is not issued below for a matter which you believe should be on calendar, please contact OA@nccourt.net.

THE COURT HAS CREATED A NEW EMAIL ADDRESS FOR REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT. PLEASE SEE BELOW.

Harper v. Grogan Case No. CU20-084703

No appearances are required. Plaintiff’s motion is continued on the Court’s own motion to July 22, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. in Department ‘A’ of the Truckee Courthouse. Plaintiff’s other discovery/sanction motion, presently scheduled for July 22, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 of the Nevada City Courthouse, will be transferred to the Truckee Courthouse as well and heard concurrently in Department ‘A’ at the same time.

Provided the ordinary procedures for arranging remote appearances are followed, Counsel is authorized to appear remotely at the hearings on July 22, 2022.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. All persons, two years of age and older, must wear a face covering. (See Executive Order 192).

You may appear via VIDEO by arranging such ZOOM appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

This is the Court’s tentative ruling. 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 before the hearing. If you do not so notify the parties and court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling. Any argument is limited to five minutes. California Rule of Court 3.1308, Local Rule 4.05.3.

Unless the court orders otherwise, the court does not provide court reporters for civil law and motion hearings and case management conferences at the court's expense. 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. Local Rule 10.00.3B.

Probate & Conservatorship Tentative Rulings

August 5, 2022 9:00 am Dept. 6

If a tentative ruling is not issued below for a matter which you believe should be on calendar, please contact OA@nccourt.net.

1. CU0000043 In Re Wright, Laurel

Appearances are required by the parties or their respective counsel. This is a status hearing only. The Court requires an update on the case, including the parties’ proposed briefing schedule and date for a contested hearing.

2. P06-14321 In the Matter of CHAD D. HANSON

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for August 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

3. P10-15114 In the Matter of ROBERT SNELL

The hearing on the petition is continued on the Court’s own motion to September 2, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court is in receipt of the Court Investigator’s report for the current review period indicating that the Conservatee wishes to seek the termination of the conservatorship.

Pursuant to Ca. Probate Code § 1852, counsel for the Conservatee is hereby appointed. The Clerk is directed forthwith to notice newly-appointed Conservatee’s counsel of the appointment, continued hearing date, and to provide counsel with any necessary documents from the Court’s file. The continued hearing date will be for both confirmation of counsel and status. No appearances are required.

The Court notes that the current conservator was appointed on August 6, 2021, and that an accounting is due by August 6, 2022. (Ca. Probate Code § 2620(a).)

4. P15-15709 In the Matter of ARIANA TOOR

This case was improperly calendared for hearing in Department 6. The case is continued on the Court’s own motion to August 11, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 3.

5. P17-16148 In the Matter of LEROY HUDSON

The petition is granted as prayed. The previously scheduled biennial review hearing set for June 21, 2024, is hereby vacated in light of the Conservatee’s death as reported by the Court Investigator in his June 13, 2022, filing. No appearances are required.

6. P20-16683 In the Matter of BRETT SULLIVAN (Estate of Karen Sullivan)

The petition is approved as prayed. Counsel is directed to provide a conforming order to the Court within one week. No appearances are required.

7. P20-16710 In the Matter of MARIA VAUGHN

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for August 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. Conservatee’s estate is ordered to pay the Court Investigator’s report fee of $475.00 forthwith. The current conservator was appointed on August 31, 2021, and an accounting is due by August 31, 2022. (Ca. Probate Code § 2620(a).) No appearances are required.

8. P21-16908 In the Matter of HARRY SCOTT STILES

The petition is granted as prayed. All other hearing dates remain as previously set. No appearances are required.

9. P21-16952 In the Matter of HENRY GURU

Appearance is required by Petitioner/Guardian to show proof that the funds have been deposited into a federally insured, blocked account. The Court’s file still does not contain any such confirmation at this time.

10. P21-16971 In the Matter of David Freeman

Appearance by counsel for the Petitioner is required. Petitioner indicates in her pleadings that no creditor’s claims have been received in this matter and that all times for the same have lapsed. The Court’s file reflects a creditor’s claim was filed on July 15, 2022, in the amount of $1,300,000.00.

The Court requires a status update as to the creditor’s claim and intends to order Petitioner to provide, within thirty (30) days, an accounting and report of administration pursuant to Ca. Probate Code §§ 10900 and 10950. Petitioner is also ordered to notice the creditor of the continued hearing date.

11. P22-17011 In the Matter of WILLIAM H. LAWS TRUST

The hearing is continued on the Court’s own motion to August 26, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. Petitioners filed a second-amended motion to compel responses to their subpoena duces tecum and noticed the hearing for the same date.

Petitioner and Deponent are advised to review the Court’s prior tentative issued on July 22, 2022, and to ensure all documents were filed as previously ordered. No appearances are required.

12. P22-17036 In the Matter of ROBERT M. GRINNELL

The hearing on the petition is continued on the Court’s own motion to September 9, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The temporary conservatorship remains in effect as previously ordered until the continued hearing date. No appearances are required for this hearing but both Conservator and proposed Conservatee will be required to attend at the continued hearing date.

Petitioner filed an amended petition for appointment of conservator on June 6, 2022, and is no longer requesting medical decision-making authority. The Court, however, notes a number of other defects in the pleadings that need to be addressed before it can move forward on the petition. There is presently no notice of hearing in file, only the corresponding proof of service. Petitioner is ordered to notice Conservatee of the new hearing date and to file the corresponding notice and proof of service. Conservator is further required to serve a proof of citation on the Conservatee at least fifteen (15) days before the continued hearing date. (Ca. Probate Code § 1824.)

Petitioner is directed to seek assistance from the Court’s Self-Help Center as necessary to assist her in correcting the above-described issues. Information on contacting the Self-Help Center can be found on the Court’s website at: https://www.nevada.courts.ca.gov/self-help/self-help-center or by phone at: (530)362-5328.

13. P69-07222 In the Matter of ALLISON F. OSWALD

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for August 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

14. PR0000022 In Re Roden, Geirge Edward

The petition to administer decedent’s estate is continued on the Court’s own motion to September 23, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. Defects remain in the Petitioner’s pleadings and the Court notes no new documents were filed since the previous hearing date on June 24, 2022.

Petitioner’s notice is on the incorrect form; Petitioner must refile notice on Judicial Council form DE-121. Petitioner must send this notice to all required parties and timely file proof of service. Petitioner must also file proof of publication and declinations for each of the named co-executors who are declining to act. Finally, since decedent’s will is handwritten, Petitioner is required to file a typed copy of the will with her pleadings. (Ca. Probate Code § 8002(b)(1).)

Petitioner is directed to seek assistance from the Court’s Self-Help Center as necessary to assist her in correcting the above-described issues. Information on contacting the Self-Help Center can be found on the Court’s website at: https://www.nevada.courts.ca.gov/self-help/self-help-center or by phone at: (530)362-5328. No appearances are required.

15. PR0000045 In Re Kinney, Nora Ellen

The petition to administer decedent’s estate is granted as prayed. The Court’s file has a proposed order for probate but appears to be missing corresponding letters. Petitioner must submit conforming letters to the Court within one week. No appearances are required.

16. PR0000046 In Re Ganz, Linda Kahn

The petition is continued on the Court’s own motion to September 2, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court’s file is missing both proof of publication as well as the required DE-147 duties form. Petitioner is also directed to re-notice and file a proof of service for the continued hearing date. Petitioner’s amended notice filed with the Court on June 28, 2022, is missing a corresponding proof of service.

Counsel for Petitioner is directed to file the required documents before the next hearing. No appearances are required.

17. PR0000057 In Re Crouse, Kathleen (Von Seebach Living Trust)

Appearance by counsel for Petitioner is required to address the issues noted below. The parties have resolved this matter by agreement and submitted a stipulation and proposed order in connection with this matter. The Court has no objection as to the stipulation and proposed order but Petitioner will need to address the issue of bond before it can be executed.

Specifically, the stipulation and proposed order contemplate the removal of both co-trustees and the appointment of a private professional fiduciary to administer the trust. Since the proposed successor trustee is not a person listed in the trust instrument, the Court is required to impose bond to secure performance of the trustee’s duties absent “compelling circumstances.” (Ca. Probate Code § 15602.) There are no waivers of bond presently on file. Absent such waivers, the Court intends to impose bond. Petitioner’s counsel may submit such waivers for all beneficiaries at or before the hearing.

18. PR0000059 In Re: Hoover Trust - Bypass Trust

The hearing on the petition to terminate the sub-trust is continued on the Court’s own motion to September 9, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. No appearances are required.

Petitioner pleads that there are five contingent remainder beneficiaries entitled to notice of the present petition and that she has noticed the same. The Court agrees that those individuals are entitled to notice under Ca. Probate Code § 16060 and the interpreting case law, but Petitioner’s notice and proof of service filed with the Court on June 30, 2022, do not indicate those beneficiaries were properly noticed and served. (See Salter v. Lerner (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1189 [affirming contingent remainder beneficiaries’ rights to trust information under Section 16060].)

Petitioner is directed to file an updated notice and proof of service for the identified contingent remainder beneficiaries. No other procedural defects are noted.

_____________________________________________________________________________

These are the Court’s tentative rulings. Attorneys and parties are directed to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing, notify the opposing side if they intend to appear at the hearing, and 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 preceding the hearing. Local Rule 8.27.

Parties are directed to review Nevada County Superior Court local rules 8.13 and 8.14 regarding proposed orders in probate matters. Orders should be drafted and submitted in conformance with such rules.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. All persons, two years of age and older, who enter the courthouse ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO wear a face covering (see Executive Order 205).

You may appear via VIDEO by arranging a remote appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

_____________________________________________________________________________

Probate & Conservatorship Tentative Rulings

July 29, 2022 9:00 am Dept. 6

If a tentative ruling is not issued below for a matter which you believe should be on calendar, please contact OA@nccourt.net.

1. P03-13732 In the Matter of PAUL S. JOHNSON

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

2. P09-14833 In the Matter of JACQUELINE C. WALKER

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

3. P09-14943 In the Matter of SEAN KRULISKY

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

4. P11-15177 In the Matter of PHILLIP T. KRULISKY

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

5. P12-15334 In the Matter of HELEN POWELL

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

6. P12-15413 In the Matter of MATTHEW UNRUH

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

7. P14-15643 In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER JOSHUA HOWIE

Appearance of the Conservator on the order to show cause is required. The matter last came before the Court on an accounting in May 2018. Conservator has not filed any subsequent accountings.

8. P14-15697 In the Matter of JUSTIN RAE KOHNKE

Appearances by counsel for the parties are required. The Court is in need of a status update from the previous mediation and whether the Conservatee still continues to object to the continuation of the conservatorship. If the Conservatee is still seeking termination of the conservatorship, Conservatee’s counsel is directed to file a petition for termination in accordance with Ca. Probate Code § 1852.

9. P15-15861 In the Matter of SHANE KRULISKY

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

10. P21-16894 In the Matter of BARBARA FRIDAY (Marie Meshew Trust)

The petition is denied without prejudice. Petitioner seeks relief under Ca. Probate Code § 248 to determine the identity of heirs and determine distribution of trust assets. Section 248 mandates that a party seeking relief under that section file verified pleadings: “any person interested in the property … may file a verified petition in the superior court of the county in which the property or any part thereof is situated ….” Petitioner’s pleadings are unverified and the petition is denied without prejudice for that reason. No appearances are required.

11. P21-16970 In the Matter of DEBORAH A PUTNAM (Estate of Timothy Ketron)

The petition is approved as prayed. The Court notes that its file is missing a conforming order. Counsel is referred to Nevada County Superior Court local rules 8.13 and 8.14. Counsel is ordered to submit a conforming order within one week of the hearing. No appearances are required.

12. P22-17044 In Re Lavagnino, Briana (Kent D. Davis Living Trust)

Appearances are required by all parties or their respective counsels. The Court last heard this matter on June 24, 2022, and ordered that an accounting be filed no later than July 22, 2022. The Court then set a hearing on the petition for August 19, 2022. At present, the Court’s file does not contain the required accounting. The Court requires the Parties to provide a status update on its preparation, service on other parties, and filing with the Court.

13. P77-08588 In the Matter of MELODY ANN MATHEWS

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

14. PR0000015 In Re Subbotin, Laurie (The Orellana Family Trust)

The Court is in receipt of Petitioner’s status report filed on July 20, 2022, indicating this matter may be mooted or resolved by developments in the case. Petitioner requests this hearing be continued one month and indicates that the petition is likely to either be dismissed or the case resolved. The hearing is hereby continued to September 2, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. No appearances are required.

15. PR0000047 In Re Frost, Lori (Wallace Wayne Stanley Trust)

Appearance is required by counsel for the Petitioner. This matter was last heard on July 22, 2022, where trust beneficiary Dean Karadunis appeared and expressed an objection to Petitioner’s appointment as successor trustee. The Court notes Mr. Karadunis was properly noticed of the initial hearing and did not file any objections or other pleadings in the matter. Nonetheless, the Court continued the matter one week and directed Mr. Karadunis to file any objections with the Court in writing no later than July 26, 2022. The Court’s file does not reflect any such objections were filed.

Petitioner’s petition to be appointed as successor trustee is granted. Based on the prior representations of counsel, the Court intends to set bond at $100,000.00 subject to a review hearing in approximately sixty (60) days to allow Petitioner an opportunity to marshal and determine trust assets. Bond can thereafter be adjusted as required once assets are fully determined.

16. PR0000051 In Re Lyman, Madalynn

The petition for limited conservatorship is continued on the Court’s own motion to September 2, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes its file is presently missing the following required items: (1) reports from Alta Regional and the Court Investigator; and (2) a capacity declaration. Further, since this is a limited conservatorship matter, appointment of counsel is mandated for the Conservatee. (Ca. Probate Code § 1471.) Counsel for the proposed Conservatee is hereby appointed. The Clerk is directed forthwith to notice newly-appointed Conservatee’s counsel of the appointment, continued hearing date, and to provide counsel with any necessary documents from the Court’s file. No appearances are required.

17. PR0000052 In Re Van Skike, Thomas Charles

The petition to administer decedent’s estate is continued on the Court’s own motion to September 9, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that its file is missing a proof of publication. No other procedural defects are noted.

18. PR0000056 In Re: CAMPEMENT D'OURS WEST

Appearance by counsel for the Petitioner is required. Petitioner seeks to be appointed as a corporate director pursuant to Ca. Corporations Code § 5520(e) and alleges in support thereof that the sole corporate director died in May 2021. The Court takes judicial notice of the April 19, 2022, statement of information referenced in Petitioner’s pleadings and filed with the California Secretary of State indicating that Julie Tannehill is the current CEO, Secretary, and CFO of the Corporation. The Court further notes that the articles of incorporation attached to the petition indicate numerous memberships were issued. Section 5520(e) specifically restricts the Court’s ability to grant relief to situations where, as is relevant here, “a corporation has not issued memberships and … all the directors resign, die, or become incompetent ….”

Petitioner is required to explain why the Court has authority to grant the requested relief where the Corporation has both issued memberships and there appears to an acting corporate director.

Petitioner also requests that the Court specifically authorize him to manage and dispose of the Corporation’s property. Counsel is also required to explain the Court’s legal authority for such relief as Section 5520 does not explicitly authorize the same.

Finally, Petitioner should address why service on the Corporation’s agent for service of process is not required for the present petition.

19. PR0000070 In Re Tyler M.

Appearance is required by Petitioners on the petition to appoint a temporary guardian. The Court proposes to briefly continue the hearing on the temporary conservatorship to allow Petitioners to cure the pleading defects noted below, but would like Petitioners to address the Court as to whether there are any issues that might arise by such a continuance.

The Court notes there is no proof of notice/service on either the proposed ward or the parents. No explanation is provided as to why the mother and proposed ward were not noticed of the hearing. As to the proposed ward’s father, Petitioners seek a waiver of notice under Ca. Probate Code § 2250(e) but have not made the requisite showing of “good cause” as defined under Ca. Rules of Court, Rule 7.1012. Petitioners further indicate they’ve been unable locate the proposed ward’s father and outline their various efforts to do so. Petitioners have not made the requisite showing of due diligence as required to waive notice where an individual’s whereabouts are unknown. Petitioners are directed to review Ca. Rules of Court, Rule 7.52. Petitioners must address these notice and service defects before the Court can proceed on the petition for temporary guardianship.

Upon review of the petition and other documents, it appears to the Court that the proposed ward may be a person described by Ca. Welfare & Institutions Code § 300. Pursuant to its authority under Ca. Probate Code § 1513(b), the Court hereby refers this matter to Nevada County Child Welfare Services (“CWS”). CWS is ordered to initiate an investigation pursuant to Ca. Welfare & Institutions Code 329 and to proceed as mandated under that statute, which includes providing this Court with a written copy of the findings and conclusions of its investigation. The Clerk is forthwith directed to submit a written referral to CPS and to include a copy of the petition for guardianship, court investigator’s report, if any, and any other material information.

Finally, the Court notes that this is a petition for the appointment of a relative as guardian. As such, the Court requires a court investigator’s report. (Ca. Probate Code § 1513(a).) Quest Investigations is hereby appointed and directed to prepare and submit a report to the Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of the petition to the court investigator forthwith.

_____________________________________________________________________________

These are the Court’s tentative rulings. Attorneys and parties are directed to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing, notify the opposing side if they intend to appear at the hearing, and 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 preceding the hearing. Local Rule 8.27.

Parties are directed to review Nevada County Superior Court local rules 8.13 and 8.14 regarding proposed orders in probate matters. Orders should be drafted and submitted in conformance with such rules.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. All persons, two years of age and older, who enter the courthouse ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO wear a face covering (see Executive Order 205).

You may appear via VIDEO by arranging such ZOOM appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

_____________________________________________________________________________

Probate & Conservatorship Tentative Rulings

July 22, 2022 9:00 am Dept. 6

If a tentative ruling is not issued below for a matter which you believe should be on calendar, please contact OA@nccourt.net.

1. P01-13308 In the Matter of BRADFORD A GILL (Estate of Wilford Gil)

The petition is continued on the Court’s own motion to August 19, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that there is no proof of notice, service, or, alternatively, waivers of the same in its file. Counsel for Petitioner is directed to file the required documents before the next hearing. No other procedural defects are noted. No appearances are required.

2. P17-16159 In the Matter of JOHN THOMAS-FLETCHER PAUL

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the court investigator for this review period. The Court notes that the Conservatee objects to the continuation of the conservatorship and that the biennial report indicates a limited conservatorship may be more appropriate.

Counsel for the Conservatee is appointed to investigate the above-described issues. The biennial review hearing is continued to August 12, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6, for confirmation of counsel and continued hearing on the biennial review. The Clerk is directed forthwith to notice newly-appointed Conservatee’s counsel of the appointment and continued hearing date and to provide counsel with the recently filed court-investigator’s report. No appearances are required.

3. P19-16519 In the Matter of TIMOTHY MILES OBRIEN

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the court investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

4. P19-16567 In the Matter of LACEY J FRANK

Appearances are required by counsel for the Conservator and Conservatee. The Court is in receipt of the Alta Regional Report filed July 15, 2022, but notes it does not have a report from court-appointed counsel for the Conservatee. The Court requests a status update from the parties and intends to set Conservator’s motion for a contested hearing if Conservator still wants to proceed in light of the Alta Report.

5. P21-16795 In the Matter of KLAUS MATHES

The hearing is continued on the Court’s own motion to August 26, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that the Public Guardian filed a declaration on July 19, 2022, indicating that the issues previously identified by the Court have been corrected and are pending review by the probate referee. Public Guardian is to file an amended inventory and appraisal with the Court before the continued hearing date. No appearances are required.

6. P21-16899 Estate of DENNIS SPINA

The petition is approved as prayed. The Court notes that its file is missing a conforming order. Counsel is referred to Nevada County Superior Court local rules 8.13 and 8.14. Counsel is ordered to submit a conforming order within one week of the hearing. No appearances are required.

7. P21-16945 In the Matter of KARLA KNAUSS (Estate of John B. Stewart)

The petition is granted as prayed. No appearances are required.

8. PR0000014 In Re Bega, Joan

Appearances by counsel are required. The Court requires an update on the petition for appointment of a permanent conservator. The Court notes temporary letters and orders issued on July 1, 2022, and further notes there are no objections on file as to appointment of the permanent conservator.

9. PR0000016 In Re Dinges-Reed, Cindy (Alberta D. Oates Revocable Trust)

Appearance by counsel for Petitioner is required. The Court requires a status update as to whether Petitioner has had any contact with Respondent and whether Petitioner is aware of any objections to the petition. If there are no objections filed and no appearance by Respondent, the Court intends to the grant the petition as prayed.

10. PR0000047 In Re Frost, Lori (Wallace Wayne Stanley Trust)

Appearance by counsel for the petitioner is required. The Court notes the May 15, 1996, order appointing Edward Karadunis successor trustee that was submitted with Petitioner’s declaration does not contain a page bearing the judge’s signature. The Court needs to verify that the prior order was properly executed before ruling on this petition. If Petitioner is in possession of such, she is directed to provide a copy to the Court.

In addition, Petitioner seeks appointment as successor trustee without bond. Petitioner is, however, not a person listed in the trust instrument as a trustee or successor trustee. Pursuant to Ca. Probate Code § 15602(b), the Court must make a finding of “compelling circumstances” to appoint such a person without bond. The Court notes no waivers of bond by the adult beneficiaries were included with the moving papers.

_____________________________________________________________________________

These are the Court’s tentative rulings. Attorneys and parties are directed to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing, notify the opposing side if they intend to appear at the hearing, and 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 preceding the hearing. Local Rule 8.27.

Parties are directed to review Nevada County Superior Court local rules 8.13 and 8.14 regarding proposed orders in probate matters. Orders should be drafted and submitted in conformance with such rules.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. All persons, two years of age and older, who enter the courthouse ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO wear a face covering (see Executive Order 205).

You may appear via VIDEO by arranging such ZOOM appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

_____________________________________________________________________________

Probate & Conservatorship Tentative Rulings

July 15, 2022 9:00 am Dept. 6

If a tentative ruling is not issued below for a matter which you believe should be on calendar, please contact OA@nccourt.net.

1. P17-16166 In the Matter of HYON ENGELMAN

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The court investigation fee is waived. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 12, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

2. P18-16351 In the Matter of ELIZABETH M. BROWN

This hearing date was previously vacated by the Court on January 29, 2021, and is on the Court’s calendar in error. This matter is taken off calendar and there are no future court dates.

3. P21-16862 In the Matter of JOHN MCKEE (Estate of Barbara Hammond)

The petition is granted as prayed. No appearances are required.

4. P21-16908 In the Matter of HARRY SCOTT STILES

Appearances by counsel for all parties are required. The Court requires a status update on the case generally, and more specifically as to: (1) whether the Public Guardian intends to pursue a permanent conservatorship or if they are still seeking to withdraw their petition; and (2) the status of the previously discussed neurological evaluation by UCSF doctors.

5. P21-16952 In the Matter of HENRY GURU

Appearance is required by Petitioner/Guardian to show proof that the funds have been deposited into a federally insured, blocked account. The Court’s file still does not contain any such confirmation at this time.

6. P97-12637 In the Matter of MELINDA I. WILSON

Appearance is required by Conservator. As to the biennial review, the Court is in receipt of the Court Investigator’s report dated July 7, 2022. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect.

As to the thirteenth accounting and report filed by Conservator, the Court notes that Conservator has not provided an updated accounting. The Court also notes that Conservator requests fees in connection with her accounting but that she has not provided a detailed declaration supporting her request for such fees. As for requested fees, Conservator has waived the same at this time due to the lack of sufficient funds for payment of the same. To the extent Conservator wishes to seek such fees in the future, she must provide a detailed breakdown of all services rendered for the relevant time-frame at issue. The Court also notes that a waiver of future accountings may be appropriate under Ca. Probate Code § 2628. The Court wishes to have Conservator address all of these issues at the hearing.

7. P98-12702 In the Matter of ERIC CARLSON

This case was previously continued to August 12, 2022, upon written motion of the Conservator. The July 15, 2022, hearing date has already been vacated. No appearances are required.

8. PR0000024 In Re Kelly, Sharon E

Appearance is required by Petitioner’s counsel. The Court notes that the successor trustee petition seeks to waive both an accounting and imposition of bond. The Court notes that while the Trust instrument does not require bond, the proposed successor trustee is not listed in the trust instrument. Pursuant to Ca. Probate Code § 15602(b), Petitioner must demonstrate “compelling circumstances” to waive bond under such instances. No waivers of bond by the beneficiaries are included with the petition and no such compelling circumstances have been demonstrated.

Further, since no accounting was provided with the petition and there are no other pleadings addressing it, the Court is unable to ascertain the current value of the trust so as to determine the proper amount of bond. If the beneficiaries are unwilling to waive an accounting and/or bond, the Court may require the Trustee to provide an accounting and will set bond accordingly.

9. P22-17000 In the Matter of ROBIN BOWERS (ADD-ON CASE)

The petition is approved as prayed. The Court notes that its file is missing a conforming order. Counsel is referred to Nevada County Superior Court local rules 8.13 and 8.14. Counsel is ordered to submit a conforming order within one week of the hearing. No appearances are required.

_____________________________________________________________________________

These are the Court’s tentative rulings. Attorneys and parties are directed to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing, notify the opposing side if they intend to appear at the hearing, and 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 preceding the hearing. Local Rule 8.27.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. All persons, two years of age and older, who enter the courthouse ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED to wear a face covering (see Executive Order 205).

You may appear via VIDEO by arranging such ZOOM appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

_____________________________________________________________________________

Probate & Conservatorship Tentative Rulings

July 8, 2022 9:00 am Dept. 6

If a tentative ruling is not issued below for a matter which you believe should be on calendar, please contact OA@nccourt.net.

1. P15-15783 In re Marie Vacchiano

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The court investigation fee is waived. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 5, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

2. P19-16555 In re Steven Steger

The Court notes that an inventory and appraisal was not timely filed in this matter and that there is no first accounting currently on file. Appearances are required by counsel regarding required submission of the same and to see if future accountings should be waived pursuant to Ca. Probate Code Section 2628. Counsel for Conservator submitted a “Report Regarding Finances” document on or about May 31, 2022, indicating that there is no money in the Conservatee’s estate and that his Social Security income is handled directly by his representative payee.

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The court investigation fee is waived.

3. P20-16685 In re Helen Jash

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. Conservatee’s estate to pay the Court Investigator’s report fee of $475.00 forthwith. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 5, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.

The Court notes there is an inventory and appraisal in its file but that no first accounting has yet been filed. Appearance from Conservator is required to provide the Court with a status update as to the first accounting in this matter.

4. P20-16713 In Re Arlette Schwendener-Bartlome

Appearances are required by the parties, including the Nevada County Public Administrator. Unless good cause is shown, the Court intends to grant Petitioner’s request to be relieved and to appoint the Nevada County Public Administrator to serve as successor administrator.

5. P21-16893 Choate Trust

The Court notes that special trustee Kristin Miguel was not noticed of the hearing or served with the petition. No other procedural defects are noted. On the Court’s own motion, the petition is continued to August 12, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to allow petitioner to properly notice the special trustee. No appearances are required.

6. P21-16921 In re Kristy Miller

The petition is approved as prayed. No appearances are required.

7. P21-16965 In re Preston Muendel

The petition is approved as prayed. No appearances are required.

8. P22-17004 Toner Trust (In the matter of CYNTHIA A SULLIVAN)

Appearances are required by all parties. The Court would inquire if the parties are amenable to attending mediation to resolve their disputes. If the parties are not amenable, the Court intends to set the matter for trial on the issues raised in each side’s respective petitions.

In addition, the Court orders, pursuant to its authority under Ca. Probate Code Section 15602(a)(2), that Trustee Sullivan post bond in the amount of $2,166,192.56 and provide proof to the Court. If Trustee Sullivan fails to post bond within a reasonable time, the Court will temporarily suspend her as trustee and appoint a private professional fiduciary agreeable to the parties to act as temporary special trustee pending the outcome of any mediation or contested hearings on the presently filed motions.

9. P97-12518 In re Jennifer Zankich

The Court is in receipt of the biennial report from the Court Investigator for this review period. The conservatorship is continued in its present form and all prior orders remain in effect. The court investigation fee is waived. The Court sets a biennial status review hearing for July 5, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee is waived. No appearances are required.

10. P98-12703 In the Matter of Eric Carlson

The motion for continuance is granted. The review hearing presently set for July 15, 2022, is hereby continued to August 12, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner is directed to timely file the required accounting before that date. No appearances are required.

11. PR0000002 In re Paul Hicks

Appearance is required by Successor Trustee Hicks. The Court requires a status update as to the accounting from former Trustee Dial as well as any requests for attorney’s fees and/or surcharge. The Court notes it is not in receipt of any new filings since the last hearing on May 27, 2022.

12. PR0000036 In re Verena Shayani

No appearances are required. The petition for termination of trust due to changed circumstances is granted as prayed.

_____________________________________________________________________________

These are the Court’s tentative rulings. Attorneys and parties are directed to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing, notify the opposing side if they intend to appear at the hearing, and 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 preceding the hearing. Local Rule 8.27.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. All persons, two years of age and older, who enter the courthouse must wear a face covering (see Executive Order 192).

You may appear via VIDEO by arranging such ZOOM appearance at least two court days prior to hearing by emailing: nccounter@nccourt.net

_____________________________________________________________________________

Case Management Conferences

August 8, 2022 9:00 am Dept. 6

1. CU0000045 Guyton, Jeffrey P. vs. Cruz, Devon German et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court has not yet received a proof of service for or answer from the Defendant. No appearances are required.

2. CU0000060 Rentschler, Kristen vs. Core Chiropractic et al

The case-management conference is continued to September 26, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that all named Defendants have answered the complaint and the case appears to be at issue but there are no case-management conference statements on file from any of the parties. Counsels for both Plaintiff and Defendants are ordered to timely file case-management conference statements prior to the continued hearing date. No appearances are required.

3. CU20-084636 LLOYD'S LONDON vs. TAMMY ANAGNOS et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The case is not yet at issue. Plaintiff received an order to serve Defendant Craig Nochajski by publication on July 27, 2022. The parties are ordered to file updated case-management conference statements for the continued hearing date. No appearances are required.

4. CU20-084721 STEPHEN VALENTINO vs. VALLEY et al

No appearances are required. The Court’s file appears to indicate that jury fees have not been posted in this matter. If Counsel believes such fees have been posted, they need to notify the Court. The case is at issue and a court trial is set as follows:

Length: 7-day court trial.

Trial Date: June 6, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: May 26, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: May 15, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

5. CU20-084785 RYAN RAY SAY vs. CLAUDE MURRY CONLEY

No appearances are required. Counsel represented at the hearing on July 18, 2022, that jury fees would be posted but none have been received. If Counsel believes such fees have been posted, they need to notify the Court. The case is at issue and a court trial is set as follows:

Length: 7-day court trial.

Trial Date: July 11, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: June 30, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: June 19, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

6. CU21-085450 MICHAEL MARTIN et al vs. BRIAN BROGIE et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. Plaintiffs received an order to serve Defendants by publication on June 1, 2022, but there is no proof of service, default, or appearance from either Defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel will need to appear at the continued hearing date to give the Court a status update on its service efforts. No appearances are required.

7. CU21-085797 KOSLIN vs. GV DEVELOPMENT LLC

The case-management conference is continued to October 31, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. A demurrer and motion for leave to file a second-amended complaint are currently pending hearing and the case is not yet at issue. No appearances are required.

8. CU21-085851 STATE FARM vs. CORRIE DANIELS et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 10, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. Both Defendants have filed answers to the first-amended complaint and the case is at issue. Plaintiff filed a case-management conference statement on July 25, 2022, indicating it would be moving for discharge when appropriate. Defendants have not filed updated case-management conference statements for this hearing and are ordered to timely file an updated statement no later than September 26, 2022. The Court intends to set trial at the continued hearing date. No appearances are required.

9. CU21-086078 KATIE BRUNTLAND vs. DIGNITY HEALTH et al

This case is on for both a continued case-management conference and an order to show cause in re: contempt for Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to appear at the case-management conference on July 11, 2022. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to appear on the order to show cause and to provide the Court with a status update as to her efforts to serve Defendant Kimberlee Naisbitt.

10. CU22-086165 CHRISTINE YOUNG vs. TAMARA TENORIO

This case is on for both a continued case-management conference and an order to show cause in re: contempt for Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to appear at the case-management conference on July 11, 2022. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to appear on the order to show cause and to provide the Court with a status update as to her efforts to serve Defendant Tamara Tenorio.

11. CU22-086264 FRIENDS OF MURCHIE vs. MCCLAIN et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 24, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. Plaintiffs’ second-amended complaint was filed on June 24, 2022, and there is a demurrer pending hearing on August 26, 2022. No appearances are required.

12. CU22-086265 COHEN et al vs. WCS PROPERTIES, LLC et al

Appearance is required by Plaintiffs’ counsel. The case was originally filed on February 18, 2022. Default has been entered against Defendant WCS Properties but Defendant Mullins has not been served or otherwise appeared in this matter. The Court requires a status update on Plaintiffs’ efforts to serve Mullins.

13. CU22-086271 MERCEDES BENZ vs. ENERGY BASED SOLUTIONS et al

Appearance is required by Plaintiff’s counsel. The case was originally filed on February 22, 2022. Plaintiff indicates it has been unable to serve either Defendant but that attempts to do so will continue. The Court requires a status update on Plaintiff’s efforts to serve both Defendants.

14. CU22-086284 EMPLOYERS PREFERRED vs. UBX INC.

Appearance is required by Plaintiff’s counsel. The case was originally filed on February 14, 2022. The sole Defendant has not been served or otherwise appeared in this action and Plaintiff has not filed an updated case-management conference statement. The Court requires a status update on Plaintiff’s efforts to serve the Defendant.

---------------

These are the Court’s tentative rulings. Attorneys and parties are urged to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing, notify the opposing side if they intend to appear at the hearing the court day preceding the hearing. Local Rule 4.00.8B. All persons, two years of age and older, who enter the Nevada City and Truckee courthouses are strongly encouraged to wear a face covering in all public areas of the courthouse and in shared workspaces. (See Executive Order 205, posted on the Court’s website).

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. YOU MAY APPEAR VIA VIDEO BY ARRANGING A REMOTE APPEARANCE AT LEAST TWO COURT DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING BY EMAILING: NCCOUNTER@NCCOURT.NET.

Case Management Conferences

August 1, 2022 9:00 am Dept. 6

1. CL21-085231 CLEANRITE INC vs. JAMI MICHELLE CORTES

Appearances are required by counsel for both parties. The minutes from the previous hearing on June 6, 2022, note that the parties had reached a settlement agreement. The Court does not have either a settlement agreement or request for dismissal. Counsel is to provide an update on the current case status.

2. CU0000023 Britton, Tiffany v. Mountain Valley

No appearances are required. No jury fees have been posted in this matter. The case is at issue and a court trial is set as follows:

Length: 12-day court trial.

Trial Date: August 1, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: July 21, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: July 10, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

3. CU0000036 Garten, Morgan v. Isenhower, Khaos et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 10, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court has not yet received a proof of service for or answer from either Defendant in this matter. No appearances are required.

4. CU19-083946 BERNADETTE FISCHER vs. DINA PINEDA et al

No appearances are required. The case is at issue and a jury trial is set as follows:

Length: 6-day jury trial.

Trial Date: May 23, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: May 12, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: May 1, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

5. CU19-084105 ANNE ROSEN vs. THE HOLBROOKE HOTEL LLC

No appearances are required. The Court’s file appears to indicate that jury fees have not been posted in this matter. If Counsel believes such fees have been posted, they need to notify the Court. The case is at issue and a court trial is set as follows:

Length: 4-day court trial.

Trial Date: June 13, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: June 2, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: May 22, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

6. CU21-085429 DAVID SHAFER vs. MONSANTO COMPANY et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. On May 20, 2022, the Court signed an order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to stay the matter for one hundred twenty (120) days. In the event the matter has not settled and no request for dismissal is filed within the period of the stay, the Parties are directed, pursuant to the Court’s prior order, to file a joint status report prior to the next court date. No appearances are required.

7. CU21-085860 GEORGE DEVER et al vs. DANIEL J. CROUCH et al

The case-management conference is continued to September 12, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that both Defendants have been served. Defendant Daniel Crouch has been defaulted but Defendant Kristi Crouch has not either appeared or been defaulted. The case is not at issue. The Court’s does not have a case-management statement on file from Plaintiff. Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to timely file a case-management-conference statement prior to the continued hearing date. No appearances are required.

8. CU21-085883 JOHN VOLZ vs. DORSEY MEADOWS HOA

Appearances are required by counsel for all parties. The Court previously continued the case-management conference in July to the present date because Cross-Defendant Extreme Roofing had not filed an answer to Dorsey Meadows’ Cross-Complaint. The Court still does not have an answer from or default of Extreme Roofing. The Court requires a status update as to the case and any potential settlement negotiations. The case is not at issue.

9. CU22-086260 SALVATORE V. ALBERTI vs. NANCY ALBERTI

The sole Defendant has been defaulted and the Court entered judgment on July 22, 2022. This case is dropped from the Court’s calendar.

10. CU22-086262 KYLIE HART vs. CHESTER JAHNS

Appearance is required by Plaintiff’s counsel. The case was originally filed on February 16, 2022, and the sole Defendant has not yet been served. The Court requires a status update on Plaintiff’s efforts to serve the Defendant.

11. CU22-086283 MICHAEL STRONG et al vs. MM REFORESTATION

Plaintiffs’ request for dismissal with prejudice as to all parties and all causes of actions was granted on June 7, 2022. This case is dropped from the Court’s calendar.

12. CU22-086313 ROSANNE PALMER vs. RENA MARIE KAIN et al

No appearances are required. The case is at issue and a jury trial is set as follows:

Length: 5-day jury trial.

Trial Date: August 1, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: July 21, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: July 10, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

13. CU22-086316 STATE FARM vs. BRIAN ROBERT HARTMAN

The case-management conference is continued to October 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court has not yet received a proof of service for or answer from the Defendant. No appearances are required.

14. CU22-086320 JAROD L. LUNEAU vs. CALIFORNIA RELIEF LLC et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. Defendants have been served but Defendant California Relief LLC has not yet answered. No appearances are required.

This is the Court’s tentative ruling. Attorneys and parties are urged to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing, notify the opposing side if they intend to appear at the hearing the court day preceding the hearing. Local Rule 4.00.8B. All persons, two years of age and older, who enter the Nevada City and Truckee courthouses are currently required to wear a face covering in all public areas of the courthouse and in shared workspaces. (See Executive Order 205, posted on the Court’s website).

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. YOU MAY APPEAR VIA VIDEO BY ARRANGING A REMOTE APPEARANCE AT LEAST TWO COURT DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING BY EMAILING: NCCOUNTER@NCCOURT.NET.

Case Management Conferences

July 25, 2022 9:00 am Dept. 6

1. CU0000020 Haehn, Rosella M. v. Haehn, Eric P. et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 10, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes it has not yet received a proof of service for or answer from the Defendant. The Court’s file is also missing a case-management conference statement from Plaintiff and an application to publish for “all persons unknown.” No appearances are required.

2. CU0000024 Smith, Ricky D. v. Harris, Makala J.

The case-management conference is continued to October 10, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes it has not yet received a proof of service for or answer from the sole Defendant in this matter. No appearances are required.

3. CU0000025 Nevada City Botanicals LLC v. MMR Books, LLC

The case-management conference is continued to October 10, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes it has not yet received a proof of service for or answer from Defendants Jason Ramsey or Elisabeth Ramsey. No appearances are required.

4. CU0000031 Costello, Richard v. Kennedy, Austin et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 10, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that Defendant Austin Kennedy has been served but has not yet filed an answer. There is no proof of service in the Court’s file for Defendant State of California. No appearances are required.

5. CU20-084670 STATE FARM vs. DAVID MATTHEW YOUNG

No appearances are required. No jury fees have been posted in this matter. The case is at issue and a court trial is set as follows:

Length: 2-day court trial.

Trial Date: July 18, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: July 7, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: June 26, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

6. CU20-084971 JERRY TITTLE vs. THE TACK ROOM et al

No appearances are required. No jury fees have been posted in this matter. The case is at issue and a court trial is set as follows:

Length: 8-day court trial.

Trial Date: July 18, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: July 7, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: June 26, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

7. CU21-085307 SONYA SOKOLOW vs. PATRICIA IRISH TRUST et al

Appearance by counsel for all parties is required. The Court notes that Defendant/Cross-Complainant Patricia Irish Trust filed its cross-complaint more than one year ago and has still not served any of the named Cross-Defendants. The Court requires a status update on Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s efforts to serve the same.

8. CU21-085699 AFT INVESTORS, LLC vs. CHARLES R SMITH et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 10, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that, pursuant to a recently executed stipulation, a second-amended cross-complaint is pending filing. The case is not yet at issue. No appearances are required.

9. CU21-085875 JENNIFER KIGGINS vs. CIRINOS AT MAIN STREET et al

Appearances by counsel for both parties is required. Previous minutes reflect that the parties may wish to set trial dates at this hearing. The Court requests a status update as Defendants have not yet answered or been defaulted and the case does not appear to be at issue.

10. CU21-086080 EVA J. RUBEN vs. JACQUELINE ELAINE PAYE et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 10, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that there is presently a pending motion to strike and the case is not yet at issue. No appearances are required.

11. CU22-086318 CHARLES OSHER vs. MATHEW LAMARK et al

The case-management conference is continued to October 10, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that it does not have proofs of service on file for either Defendant. The case is not at issue. No appearances are required.

12. CU22-086321 DAMONDRE WILSON vs. TERESA ELAINE MONTANA

The case-management conference is continued to October 10, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that it does not have a proof of service on file for the Defendant. The case is not at issue. Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to timely file a case-management conference statement prior to the continued hearing date. No appearances are required.

13. CU22-086322 KEVIN MCELWEE vs. ALTA SIERRA AIRPORT OWNERS

The case-management conference is continued to September 12, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes that all named Defendants have answered the complaint and the case appears to be at issue but notes there are no case-management conference statements on file from any of the parties. Counsels for both Plaintiff and Defendants are ordered to timely file a case-management conference statement prior to the continued hearing date. No appearances are required.

-----------------

These are the Court’s tentative rulings. Attorneys and parties are urged to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing, notify the opposing side if they intend to appear at the hearing the court day preceding the hearing. Local Rule 4.00.8B. All persons, two years of age and older, who enter the Nevada City and Truckee courthouses are currently required to wear a face covering in all public areas of the courthouse and in shared workspaces. (See Executive Order 205, posted on the Court’s website).

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. YOU MAY APPEAR VIA VIDEO BY ARRANGING A REMOTE APPEARANCE AT LEAST TWO COURT DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING BY EMAILING: NCCOUNTER@NCCOURT.NET.

Case Management Conferences

July 18, 2022 9:00 am Dept. 6

1. CL22-086237 CLARK PEST CONTROL, INC. vs. ALFRED BULF et al

The case-management conference is continued to September 19, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes it has not yet received a proof of service for or answer from the sole Defendant in this matter. No appearances are required.

2. CU0000011 Fackrell, Amber v. Western Grain & Milling Inc. et al

The case-management conference is continued to September 19, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes Defendant Pitman Farms has been served but has not appeared or otherwise been defaulted. No appearances are required.

3. CU0000014 Dupell, David R v. Turner, Margaret F. et al

No appearances are required. The case is at issue and trial is set as follows:

Length: 2-day court trial.

Trial Date: May 2, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: April 21, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: April 10, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

4. CU0000015 Vanotten v. Nevada Meadows et al

5. CU0000016 Vanotten v. Nevada Meadows et al

Appearance is required by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court notes Plaintiff appears to have filed two nearly identical complaints against the same Defendants on the same date and requires an explanation. The Court also notes it has not yet received a proof of service for Defendant Nevada Meadows.

6. CU0000023 Britton v. Mountain Valley Child & Family Services, Inc.

No appearances are required. No jury fees have been posted in this matter. The case is at issue and a court trial is set as follows:

Length: 12-day court trial.

Trial Date: June 20, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: June 9, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: May 22, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

7. CU17-082689 LYNCH vs. GONSALVES

Appearances are required by counsel and parties to discuss dates for trial. The Court notes this matter is nearly five years old and that trial dates have been set and vacated on multiple occasions.

8. CU19-084105 ANNE ROSEN vs. THE HOLBROOKE HOTEL LLC

Appearances by counsel for both parties are required. The case is at issue and the Court requires a status update as to settlement negotiations and mediation. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the Court intends to set the matter for a 4-day court trial. The Court notes that jury fees do not appear to have been posted.

9. CU20-084721 VALENTINO vs. VALLEY PACIFIC

Appearances by counsel for both parties are required. The case is at issue and the Court requires a status update as to mediation efforts. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the Court intends to set the matter for a 7-day court trial. The Court notes that jury fees have not been posted.

10. CU20-084727 WARREN LIPPERT et al vs. B&W RESORTS, INC. et al

No appearances are required. No jury fees have been posted in this matter. The case is at issue and a court trial is set as follows:

Length: 7-day court trial.

Trial Date: May 30, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: May 19, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: May 8, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

11. CU20-084785 RYAN RAY SAY vs. CLAUDE MURRY CONLEY

Appearances by counsel for both parties are required. The case is at issue. The Court notes a mediation brief was filed by Defendant and requires a status update as to mediation or other settlement efforts. If the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the Court intends to set the matter for a 4-day court trial. The Court notes that jury fees have not been posted.

12. CU20-084805 COLE DAVIS vs. SIERRA NEVADA et al

The case-management conference is continued to September 19, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. Updated case-management conference statements for this hearing are not presently in the Court’s file. Counsel for all parties are directed to provide updated statements prior to the continued hearing date. No appearances are required.

13. CU20-084928 FARRELL v. MALLO

The Court notes this case is on for a dismissal hearing and that there is an executed settlement agreement on file. Per the Court’s direction at the hearing on March 14, 2022, unless there is an appearance from the parties, the Court will dismiss the matter without prejudice and retain jurisdiction over the settlement.

14. CU21-085313 SAUNDRA PRATT et al vs. THERESA FRANKLIN

Appearances are required by counsel for both parties. The Court notes that a notice of settlement was filed with the Court on May 17, 2022, indicating a request for dismissal would be filed no later than June 30, 2022. No such request for dismissal has been filed and the Court requires a status update.

15. CU21-085655 FINDLEY vs. ANDERSON et al

Appearances by all counsel are required. The Court requires a status update as the settlement negotiations and mediation.

16. CU21-085657 CAROLE GEORGE vs. ELENA LARSON

Appearance by Plaintiff’s counsel is required. The Court notes it has not yet received a proof of service for or answer from Defendant in this matter. Plaintiff’s counsel indicates he may need to serve by publication; however, there is no such application on file. The Court requires an update as to Plaintiff’s efforts to serve the Defendant.

17. CU21-085757 MARGARET C. BRUNER vs. MELISSA MOHLER et al

Appearance by Plaintiff’s counsel is required. The Court notes the Defendants appear to have been served with the second-amended complaint on or about February 10, 2022, but neither have either answered or otherwise been defaulted.

18. CU21-086081 THERESE M. MURRAY vs. BETH C. MCLAUGHLIN

The case-management conference is continued to September 19, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The case is not at issue. The Court notes Defendant has appeared and filed a motion for change of venue, which is currently pending hearing, but has not yet filed an answer to the complaint. No appearances are required.

19. CU21-086087 OLIVIA L. WILLIAMS vs. CYD F. DOLLIVER et al

No appearances are required. The case is at issue and trial is set as follows:

Length: 2-day court trial.

Trial Date: July 11, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: June 30, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: June 19, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

20. CU21-086090 WATKINS vs. GOLDEN EMPIRE NURSING et al

No appearances are required. Jury fees have been posted. The case is at issue and a trial is set as follows:

Length: 6-day jury trial.

Trial Date: June 6, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: May 26, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: May 15, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

21. CU22-086188 PARALLEL CONSTRUCTORS LLC vs. CLAY RILEY

No appearances are required. Jury fees have been posted. The case is at issue and trial is set as follows:

Length: 4-day jury trial.

Trial Date: July 11, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: June 30, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: June 19, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

22. CU22-086196 JOHN BENNETT vs. LAKE WILDWOOD ASSOCIATION

No appearances are required. Jury fees have been posted. The case is at issue and trial is set as follows:

Length: 8-day jury trial.

Trial Date: July 18, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: July 7, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: June 26, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

23. CU22-086197 RAUL OLIVAS vs. GOLDEN 1 CU et al

Appearance is required by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court notes this case is approximately five months old and the Defendants have still not been served or otherwise appeared. The Court requires an update as to Plaintiff’s efforts to serve the named Defendants.

24. CU22-086305 VALENTINA N. MASTERZ vs. GREGORY J. DIAZ et al

This case has been dropped from calendar.

This is the Court’s tentative ruling. Attorneys and parties are urged to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing, notify the opposing side if they intend to appear at the hearing the court day preceding the hearing. Local Rule 4.00.8B. All persons, two years of age and older, who enter the Nevada City and Truckee courthouses are highly encouraged to wear a face covering in all public areas of the courthouse and in shared workspaces. (See Executive Order 205, posted on the Court’s website).

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. YOU MAY APPEAR VIA VIDEO BY ARRANGING SUCH ZOOM APPEARANCE AT LEAST TWO COURT DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING BY EMAILING: NCCOUNTER@NCCOURT.NET.

Case Management Conferences

July 11, 2022 9:00 am Dept. 6

1. CL22-086230 MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY vs. RICHARD PARKS

The case-management conference is continued to September 5, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes it has not yet received a proof of service for or answer from Cross-Defendant Rickets to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Parks’ cross-complaint. No appearances are required.

2. CU20-084962 WEITZ et al vs. GOLDEN GATE et al

The case-management conference is continued to September 5, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes it has not yet received an answer from Defendant/Cross-Defendant Timothy Ballard to Defendant Golden Gate’s cross-complaint. No appearances are required.

3. CU21-085164 CHIRAYU PATEL vs. VAMAYA INC

No appearances are required. The case is at issue and trial is set as follows:

Length: 6-day jury trial.

Trial Date: February 28, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: February 17, 2023 at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: February 6, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

4. CU21-085853 DONALD E DELAHUNT vs. RALEY'S

The case-management conference is continued to September 5, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes it has not yet received an answer from Defendant to the first amended complaint and the case is not at issue. The Court also notes that it granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on June 10, 2022, and that the case is pending hearing on the final settlement on August 12, 2022. No appearances are required.

5. CU21-085875 JENNIFER KIGGINS vs. CIRINOS AT MAIN STREET et al

Appearances are required from counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant. The Court requires a status update as to mediation between the parties. The Court also notes that it does not have an answer on file from Defendant Raley’s to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

6. CU21-086078 KATIE BRUNTLAND vs. DIGNITY HEALTH et al

Appearance is required by Plaintiff’s counsel. The complaint in this matter was filed on or about June 23, 2021, and Defendant Kimberlee Naisbitt has still not been served or otherwise appeared in this matter. The Court requires a status update on Plaintiff’s efforts to serve this Defendant.

7. CU22-086160 KEVIN MALONE vs. WILLIAM FERREIRA

The case-management conference is continued to September 5, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes it has not yet received a proof of service for or answer from Defendant William Ferreira. Plaintiff indicates it may need to serve by publication; however, there is no such application on file. No appearances are required for this hearing but Plaintiff’s counsel will be required to appear at the continued case-management conference date to provide the Court a status/update as to its efforts to serve the Defendant.

8. CU22-086165 CHRISTINE YOUNG vs. TAMARA LYNN TENORIO

Appearance is required by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court notes this case is approximately six months old and Defendant has not been served with the summons or complaint. The Court requests Plaintiff’s counsel provide a status update as to its efforts to serve the Defendant.

9. CU22-086182 TERRY MCGINNIS vs. SARAH ELIZABETH LUPYAK et al

No appearances are required. Jury fees have been paid. The case is at issue and trial is set as follows:

Length: 12-day jury trial.

Trial Date: April 25, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: April 14, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: April 3, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

10. CU22-086184 MOE vs. CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM FROMLAK

No appearances are required. Jury fees have been paid. The case is at issue and trial is set as follows:

Length: 5-day jury trial.

Trial Date: May 2, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: April 21, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: April 10, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

11. CU22-086285 BULLOCK vs. ATRIA MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC

No appearances are required. Jury fees have not been paid. The case is at issue and a court trial is set as follows:

Length: 6-day court trial.

Trial Date: May 2, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: April 21, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: April 10, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

12. CU22-086292 BLACKBURN vs. ALBERT FRANK ROSSITTO et al

No appearances are required. Jury fees have not been paid. The case is at issue and a court trial is set as follows:

Length: 7-day court trial.

Trial Date: May 16, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: May 5, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: April 24, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

13. CU22-086294 HYATT et al vs. KYLE ANDREW SPAULDING et al

The case-management conference is continued to September 5, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes this is a first case-management conference and that both Defendants appear to have been served but have not appeared or otherwise been defaulted.

14. CU22-086295 MITCHELL vs. MITCHELL

The case-management conference is continued to September 5, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes this is a first case-management conference and that Defendant James Mitchell has filed an answer in the matter. The case is, however, still not at issue since Plaintiff’s complaint also lists “All Persons Unknown” as a Defendant to this partition action. The Court notes there is no application on file to serve “All Persons Unknown” by publication.

15. CU22-086296 KELLY vs. SEAN M HUNTLEY 1992 TRUST et al

The case-management conference is continued to September 5, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6. The Court notes this is a first case-management conference and that both Defendants appear to have been served but have not appeared or otherwise been defaulted.

16. TCU20-7553 CAROLYN GALLAGHER vs. JEFFREY CAMP

No appearances are required. The case is at issue and the Court will be resetting trial dates. A review of the Court’s electronic file indicates jury fees have not been paid. Trial dates were previously set in this matter to be heard at the Truckee Courthouse but Judge Durant has disqualified herself pursuant to Ca. Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1. The previously scheduled dates set for hearings at the Truckee Courthouse will be vacated and reset in Nevada City as follows:

Length: 7-day court trial.

Trial Date: March 14, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: March 3, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: February 20, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

17. TCU20-7672 DYLON STOREY vs. TAHOE SIERRA EYE & OPTICAL

No appearances are required. Jury fees have not been paid. The case is at issue and a court trial is set as follows:

Length: 5-day court trial.

Trial Date: February 28, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Pre-Trial Conference: February 17, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 6.

Mandatory Settlement Conference: February 6, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6.

18. TCU21-7785 KATHY BOW et al vs. CEBRIDGE TELECOM CA LLC et al

Appearances are required by both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ counsel to discuss the proposed briefing schedule for Defendant’s anticipated renewed motion to compel arbitration. The Court notes the date proposed in Plaintiff’s CMC statement for filing of the motion (July 8, 2022) will occur before the actual CMC hearing.

This is the Court’s tentative ruling. Attorneys and parties are urged to review the tentative rulings prior to the scheduled hearing, notify the opposing side if they intend to appear at the hearing the court day preceding the hearing. Local Rule 4.00.8B. All persons, two years of age and older, who enter the Nevada City and Truckee courthouses must wear a face covering in all public areas of the courthouse and in shared workspaces. (See Executive Order 192, posted on the Court’s website).

PERSONAL APPEARANCES ARE PERMITTED. YOU MAY APPEAR VIA VIDEO BY ARRANGING SUCH ZOOM APPEARANCE AT LEAST TWO COURT DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING BY EMAILING: NCCOUNTER@NCCOURT.NET.

8-4-2022 Dept. 3 Guardianship Calendar

P13-15541 IN RE SIERRA M.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interest of the minor. Your appearance on August 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for August 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department III of the Superior Court of California, County of Nevada. Please check the website 2 business days prior to the hearing date to verify if your appearance is necessary.

P14-15621 IN RE ELLIE S.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interest of the minor. Your appearance on August 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for August 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department III of the Superior Court of California, County of Nevada. Please check the website 2 business days prior to the hearing date to verify if your appearance is necessary.

P14-15658 IN RE ALEXIS E-M.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interest of the minor. Your appearance on August 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for August 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department III of the Superior Court of California, County of Nevada. Please check the website 2 business days prior to the hearing date to verify if your appearance is necessary.

P17-16092 IN RE KIMBER R.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interest of the minor. Your appearance on August 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for August 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department III of the Superior Court of California, County of Nevada. Please check the website 2 business days prior to the hearing date to verify if your appearance is necessary.

P17-16146 IN RE LEAH B.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interest of the minor. Your appearance on August 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for August 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department III of the Superior Court of California, County of Nevada. Please check the website 2 business days prior to the hearing date to verify if your appearance is necessary.

P18-16289 IN RE JOSHUA B.

The Court has not received the Confidential Guardianship Status Report from the Guardians. The matter is set for hearing on August 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Department III of the Superior Court of California, County of Nevada. Personal appearance is required.

P19-16487 IN RE EMMA C.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interest of the minor. Your appearance on August 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for August 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department III of the Superior Court of California, County of Nevada. Please check the website 2 business days prior to the hearing date to verify if your appearance is necessary.

P19-16491 IN RE EMMA M.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interest of the minor. Your appearance on August 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for August 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department III of the Superior Court of California, County of Nevada. Please check the website 2 business days prior to the hearing date to verify if your appearance is necessary.

P19-16492 IN RE MIAH M.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interest of the minor. Your appearance on August 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for August 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department III of the Superior Court of California, County of Nevada. Please check the website 2 business days prior to the hearing date to verify if your appearance is necessary.

P20-16789 IN RE RYDER M.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interest of the minor. Your appearance on August 4, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for August 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Department III of the Superior Court of California, County of Nevada. Please check the website 2 business days prior to the hearing date to verify if your appearance is necessary.

PR0000017 IN RE REGIE R.

No tentative ruling. Personal appearance is required.

PR0000018 IN RE JEFFREY G.

No tentative ruling. Personal appearance is required.

Friday August 5, 2022 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference Calendar

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.

If either party wishes to object to the tentative decision and appear in Court on the date stated above, that party must notify the other party and the Court Clerk by telephone to 530-362-4309 Ext. 8 or by email to nccounter@nccourt.net no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the current Status Conference date of 08/05/2022. If neither party gives this notice, the Tentative Decision will be adopted as the Order of the Court.
If neither party gives that notice, your appearance on 08/05/2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary UNLESS the order in your case requires that appearance.
Both parties are advised that no Judgment has been entered. No Judgment or other orders will be entered automatically. Moving forward with this case will require action from at least one party.
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. 4. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
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.
If both parties opt out of the status conference, 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.
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 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL08-005969
Petitioner:	Teri Owens	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Dennis Owens	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of by Posting (or by other means if that has been accomplished).
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015339
Petitioner:	Angela Watson	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Kenneth Watson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

This case was filed on 08/28/2019, more than three years before the next status conference date stated above. If Proof of Service of the Summons and Petition has not been filed with the Court before the next status conference date, the case will be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.250.

The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015936
Petitioner:	Gretchen Ramos	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Steven Ramos	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015947
Petitioner:	Shannen Anderson	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Richard Anderson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016258
Petitioner:	Matthew Aldrich	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Angela Aldrich	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016271
Petitioner:	Haley Mullen	Attorney: Sara Thompson
Respondent:	Nicolas Hyczar	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016274
Petitioner:	Robert Corrigan	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Jill Corrigan	Attorney: Tamara Grosvenor

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.
2. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016318
Petitioner:	Teresa Sweeny-Cutter	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Rick Cutter	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016330
Petitioner:	Cynthia Lane	Attorney: Kristen Alexander
Respondent:	Jeffrey Lane	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016593
Petitioner:	Kristen Rentschler	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Connor Stafford	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016609
Petitioner:	Tazarian Graham	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Lilynna Graham	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Sum
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016610
Petitioner:	Colleen Norman	Attorney: Candence Gettys
Respondent:	Robert Norman	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016613
Petitioner:	Clare Moran	Attorney: Sara Thompson
Respondent:	Jackson Moran	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016623
Petitioner:	Matthew Aaron Sutherlin	Attorney: Jennifer Granger
Respondent:	Jessica Nicole Sutherlin	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016627
Petitioner:	Karla Miller	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Doug Miller	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Corrected Proof of Service of Summons and Petition package. Proof of Service as filed shows that this was served before the case was opened. If corrected Proof of Service is not possible, re-serve Summons and Petition package.
2. Once corrected Proof of Service has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016635
Petitioner:	Jason Holt	Attorney: Kristen Sellers
Respondent:	Danielle Champeau	Attorney: Megan Sasaki

Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016655
Petitioner:	Christine Lapressle	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Kevin Lapressle	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016657
Petitioner:	Jeffrey Weld	Attorney: Candence Gettys
Respondent:	Ellen Weld	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016678
Petitioner:	Kelly Van de Vegte	Attorney: James Moore
Respondent:	Erik Van de Vegte	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons on Amended Petition, OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. Once Proof of Service of Amended Petition has occurred, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner at least 30 days after service of Amended Petition. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016963
Petitioner:	Aaron Hill	Attorney: W. Gregory Klein
Respondent:	Shelly Hill	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The Court notes that a Memo that Civil Case is at Issue has been filed by Petitioner. Pending status conference may be vacated at the trial setting conference.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016964
Petitioner:	Steven Fidler	Attorney: W. Gregory Klein
Respondent:	Sherri Blackwell Fidler	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016965
Petitioner:	Richard Evangelista	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Heidi Tyra	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-016969
Petitioner:	Cody Johnson	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Joycelyne Johnson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-016974
Petitioner:	Ziv Cohen	Attorney: Candence Gettys
Respondent:	Rachel Cohen	Attorney: Cleat Walters, III

Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-016980
Petitioner:	David SInclair	Attorney: Kathy Lindsay
Respondent:	Ashley SInclair	Attorney: Jennifer Granger

Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-016983
Petitioner:	Rosheen Ward-Nulph	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Cory Nulph	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-016984
Petitioner:	Susan Valeria Roberts	Attorney: W. Gregory Klein
Respondent:	Phillip Anthony Roberts	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-016985
Petitioner:	David Dearman	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Mandy Dearman	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-016988
Petitioner:	Geoffrey Lyons	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Barbera Joffe	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-016992
Petitioner:	Nathan Scott Thomas	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Colleen Lee Thomas	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-016995
Petitioner:	Melisa Ann Mistler	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Michael Yates	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-016999
Petitioner:	Lance M. Vieira	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Carla M. Vieira	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-017003
Petitioner:	Edoardo Taroni	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Erin M. Zajac	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. Corrected FL-141 from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-017004
Petitioner:	Govinda McComb-Bryant	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Crinan Bryant	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-017010
Petitioner:	Andrea A. Marshall	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Hayden K. Marshall	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Corrected Proof of Service of Summons. Proof of substituted service was filed without declaration of due dilligence. Also box was checked for Mail and Acknwledgment service, but no FL-117 was filed. If Proof of Service cannot be corrected, re-serve Summons and Petition package.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. At least 30 days after correct service, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-017014
Petitioner:	Cheryl Alexander	Attorney: Joel Garcia
Respondent:	Curtis Alexander	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. Corrected FL-141 from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. Caption shows Respondent’s address and signature but boxes checked are for service of Petitioner’s documents.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-017019
Petitioner:	Alana Lucia	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Vince Lucia	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-017020
Petitioner:	Shane Colbert	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Athea Colbert	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-017022
Petitioner:	Sagi Seagel	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Summer Wind	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 08/05/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL22-017097
Petitioner:	Melanie I. Sandlin	Attorney: Nancy Christie
Respondent:	John J. Sandlin	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 02/03/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 02/03/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by referen _________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Friday July 1, 2022 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference Calendar

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.

If either party wishes to object to the tentative decision and appear in Court on the date stated above, that party must notify the other party and the Court Clerk by telephone to 530-362-4309 Ext. 8 or by email to nccounter@nccourt.net no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the current Status Conference date of 07/01/2022. If neither party gives this notice, the Tentative Decision will be adopted as the Order of the Court.
If neither party gives that notice, your appearance on 07/01/2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary UNLESS the order in your case requires that appearance.
Both parties are advised that no Judgment has been entered. No Judgment or other orders will be entered automatically. Moving forward with this case will require action from at least one party.
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. 4. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
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.
If both parties opt out of the status conference, 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.
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 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-014900
Petitioner:	Cheryl Glace	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Mark Glace	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015070
Petitioner:	Jeannine Horton	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Randy Bodenhamer	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015087
Petitioner:	Adison G. Clark	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Melissa J. Crowder	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

This case was filed on 05/15/2019, more than three years before the next status conference date stated above. If Proof of Service of the Summons and Petition has not been filed with the Court before the next status conference date, the case will be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.250.

The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015129
Petitioner:	Laura Link	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	John Link	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

This case was filed on 06/05/2019, more than three years before the next status conference date stated above. If Proof of Service of the Summons and Petition has not been filed with the Court before the next status conference date, the case will be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.250.

The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons and Petition package OR request from Petitioner to dismiss the case.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. Once the Summons and Petition package has been served, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015196
Petitioner:	William Andrews	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Shannon Andrews	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The Court notes that 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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015204
Petitioner:	Cassandra Metz	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Logan Metz	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The Court notes that 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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015234
Petitioner:	Harmony Wood	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	David Wood	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
This case was filed on 07/19/2019, more than three years before the next status conference date stated above. If Proof of Service of the Summons and Petition has not been filed with the Court before the next status conference date, the case will be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.250.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015248
Petitioner:	Hans Werner Schneider	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Jennifer Schneider	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The Court notes that 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015276
Petitioner:	Lisa Wilkinson	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Andrew Wilkinson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The Court notes that following are still required:
1. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015278
Petitioner:	Jessica James Moulton	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	James Noland Moulton	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The Court notes that following are still required:
1. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015312
Petitioner:	David McGirr	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Gina Fierro-McGirr	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

This case was filed on 08/16/2019, more than three years before the next status conference date stated above. If Proof of Service of the Summons and Petition has not been filed with the Court before the next status conference date, the case will be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.250.

The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015502
Petitioner:	Christina Carman	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Anthony Edward Carman	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

This case was filed on 11/25/2019, more than three years before the next status conference date stated above. If Proof of Service of the Summons and Petition has not been filed with the Court before the next status conference date, the case will be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.250.

The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015506
Petitioner:	Merianne Carlisle	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	John Carlisle	Attorney: Jeffrey Guyton

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015509
Petitioner:	Mohamed Aboubacar	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Peggy Ann Peterson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
2. Corrected FL-141 from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have information for the date of delivery of the documents.
3. Corrected FL-141 from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have information for the date of delivery of the documents.
4. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.
5. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Respondent.
6. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015518
Petitioner:	Sagan Sutera	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Michael Sutera	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-01557
Petitioner:	Kathleen Lynn Johnson	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	David W. Johnson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
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. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.
4. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Respondent.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015629
Petitioner:	Nicole LaSpina	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Darrell Landingham	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Corrected Proof of Service.
  1. Proof of Service filed only shows service of Summons and Notice of Family Law Status Conference. Need Proof of Service showing service of FL-100 Petition and BLANK FL_120 Response OR re-serve entire Summons and Petition package. OR
  2. Request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR
  3. Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. Corrected FL-141 from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
3. Once correct service of process has been made, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015661
Petitioner:	Debora Sanchez	Attorney: Cleat Walters, III
Respondent:	Mario Sanchez	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015685
Petitioner:	Christopher Lee Hensley	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Teresa Hensley	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. Once the Summons and Petition package have been served, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015932
Petitioner:	Stacy Darren Miller	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Angela Michelle Miller	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have information for the delivery method of the documents.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016192
Petitioner:	Tawni Greenidge	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Michael Greenidge	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016565
Petitioner:	Mark G. Whiting	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Virginia L. Whiting	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. Once the Summons and Petition package has been served, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016569
Petitioner:	Jamie Rae Hanf	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Adam James Hanf	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016572
Petitioner:	Alissa Katherine Passalis	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Bill Tom Passalis	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. Once the Summons and Petition package has been served, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016573
Petitioner:	Jeffrey Robert Daly	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Trina Thorsen	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016575
Petitioner:	Alexander R. Hill	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Sabrina Lee Hill	Attorney: Cleat Walters, III

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016582
Petitioner:	Anthony Gonzales	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Jessica Renee Jennings	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
2. Respondent shall serve and file MC-040 Notice of Change of Address or contact information with her correct contact information within 30 days.
Other than the correction of Respondent’s address, the required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016605
Petitioner:	Michelle Jarrett	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Shaun Case	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016885
Petitioner:	Cheyanna Bone	Attorney: Gregory Silva
Respondent:	John B. Kaufmann	Attorney: Joseph J. Bell

Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016915
Petitioner:	Brittany Scarbrough	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Shawna Baldwin-Scarbrough	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. Once the Summons and Petition package have been served, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016921
Petitioner:	Brady Turner	Attorney: Cleat Walters, III
Respondent:	Angela Turner	Attorney: D. Laurence Montgomery

Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016924
Petitioner:	Sarah Ann Edwards	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Nicholas John Edwards	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016929
Petitioner:	Taylor Severe	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	James Palombo	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016930
Petitioner:	Juliana Rose Berglund	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Timothy Purdy	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016932
Petitioner:	Ryan Litke	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Patricia Marratto-Litke	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016934
Petitioner:	Tara Noel LaCount	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Sean Russell Spittler	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. Once the Summons and Petition package has been served, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016935
Petitioner:	Anthony Brenes	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Reana Maria Brenes	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. Once the Summons and Petition package have been served, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016937
Petitioner:	Daphne West Jackson	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Kurt C. Jackson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016943
Petitioner:	Marshall Olson	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Krisanne Olson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016949
Petitioner:	Sheajuli Dianne Lingman-Smith	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Brandon James Smith	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. Once the Summons and Petition package has been served, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016950
Petitioner:	Willard Ernst	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Janelle Ernst	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. Once the Summons and Petition package has been served, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016952
Petitioner:	Thomas Roberts	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Lauren Brookens	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016955
Petitioner:	Jessica Michelle Eldredge	Attorney: Laura Strasser
Respondent:	Kerry Eldredge	Attorney: Cleat Walters, III

Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016957
Petitioner:	Marina Avdeeva Smith	Attorney: Andrei Romanenko
Respondent:	Evan James Smith	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 01/06/2023, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. Once the Summons and Petition package has been served, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 01/06/2023, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016960
Petitioner:	Chantelle Paulina Neep	Attorney: Denise Dirks (Ltd Scope)
Respondent:	Tyson Paul Taylor	Attorney: Joseph Willimore

Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 07/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016966
Petitioner:	Alicia Marie Brott	Attorney: Julia Perkovich
Respondent:	Nathan Charles Brott	Attorney: Chandra Miller

Both parties are represented by an attorney. The parties have stipulated that the case will be handled in collaborative practice process. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

June 3, 2022 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference Calendar

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.

If either party wishes to object to the tentative decision and appear in Court on the date stated above, that party must notify the other party and the Court Clerk by telephone to 530-362-4309 Ext. 8 or by email to nccounter@nccourt.net no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the current Status Conference date of 03/04/2022. If neither party gives this notice, the Tentative Decision will be adopted as the Order of the Court.
If neither party gives that notice, your appearance on 03/04/2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary UNLESS the order in your case requires that appearance.
Both parties are advised that no Judgment has been entered. No Judgment or other orders will be entered automatically. Moving forward with this case will require action from at least one party.
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. 4. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
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.
If both parties opt out of the status conference, 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.
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 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-014860
Petitioner:	Cheri Lynn Smith	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Samuel Raymond Smith	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. The Court notes that this case was filed and served more than three years ago.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015521
Petitioner:	Sharlyn Zufelt	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Kenneth Dolan	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
This case was filed on 12/09/20219, more than three years before the next status conference date stated above. If Proof of Service of the Summons and Petition has not been filed with the Court before the next status conference date, the case will be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.250.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015727
Petitioner:	Catherine Adams	Attorney: Cleat Walters, III
Respondent:	Richard Adams	Attorney: Self-Represented

This is the 5th status conference. Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.
The following are still required:
1. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.
2. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015839
Petitioner:	Kimberly Susan Starkey	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Eric R. Starkey	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015875
Petitioner:	Stephanie Diane Ferreira	Attorney: Chandra Miller
Respondent:	William Dean Ferreira	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Judgement has been entered and the case is at issue. The Status Conference is dropped. Parties will proceed on At Issue Memo and Counter Memo.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015879
Petitioner:	Renee Renoir	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Serffen Hawkinssnell	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016110
Petitioner:	Carey Allen	Attorney: William Phillips
Respondent:	Victoria Allen	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016130
Petitioner:	Beauy Grady	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Francesca Grady	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016146
Petitioner:	Ashley Morris	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Brandy Morris	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-106147
Petitioner:	Meritt McClure	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Steve McClure	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016160
Petitioner:	Jeremiah Watkins	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Jolene King	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016168
Petitioner:	Leah Fowler	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Cory Fowler	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016488
Petitioner:	Rosemary Lynch	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Daniel Lynch	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. Corrected FL-141 from Respondent. Current FL-141 was not signed by party or by counsel of record.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016502
Petitioner:	Laura Witt	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Darryl Witt	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016507
Petitioner:	Robert Dicklinson	Attorney: `Self-Represented
Respondent:	Sandra Acuna	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-0161530
Petitioner:	Lawrence Honer	Attorney: W. Gregory Klein
Respondent:	Barbara Honer	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016542
Petitioner:	Norma Trump	Attorney: William Phillips
Respondent:	Peter Trump	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents. Waiver of Preliminary Disclosure by Petitioner is not permitted.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016566
Petitioner:	Robert Anthony Bringolf	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Hannah Kay Bringolf	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-130 Appearance, Stipulation and Waivers
2. Proof of service of Final Declarations of Disclosure by each party OR waiver of those by FL-144 signed by both parties.
3. Re-submission of FL-180 (with attachments) and FL-190 (with stamped envelopes).
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016810
Petitioner:	Tomi Hadley	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Dylan Hadley	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016861
Petitioner:	Valerie Aura	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Randy J. Miller	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016890
Petitioner:	Jesse Douglas Ayer	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Amy Ayer	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016891
Petitioner:	Faith Martin	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Austin Green	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016892
Petitioner:	Nick Wilczek	Attorney: Nancy Christie
Respondent:	Fiona Wilson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016906
Petitioner:	Krystal Harlander	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Collin Harlander	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. Corrected FL-141 from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016907
Petitioner:	Tina Everhart	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	James Everhart	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016913
Petitioner:	Claudia Moreno Samora	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Rafael Jurado Martinez	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have information for the date of delivery of the documents.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 06/03/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016914
Petitioner:	Alexandria Lurene Nipper	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	David Walden Nipper	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/02/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

May 6, 2022 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference Calendar

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.

A. If either party wishes to object to the tentative decision and appear in Court on the date stated above, that party must notify the other party and the Court Clerk by telephone to 530-362-4309 Ext. 8 or by email to nccounter@nccourt.net no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the current Status Conference date of 03/04/2022. If neither party gives this notice, the Tentative Decision will be adopted as the Order of the Court.

B. If neither party gives that notice, your appearance on 03/04/2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary UNLESS the order in your case requires that appearance.

C. Both parties are advised that no Judgment has been entered. No Judgment or other orders will be entered automatically. Moving forward with this case will require action from at least one party.

D. 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. 4. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.

E. 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.

F. If both parties opt out of the status conference, 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.

G. 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL19-015513
Petitioner:	Devon Merritt	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Jason Merritt	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time.

2. The following are still required:

a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.

b. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.

c. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Respondent.

3. Local FL20 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.

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

______________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015680
Petitioner:	Elizabeth Uelman	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Joseph Uelman	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015691
Petitioner:	Amy Cassidy	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Bryan Cassidy	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015699
Petitioner:	Kevin Doyle	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Jerrilee Doyle	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015724
Petitioner:	Candi Mickelson	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Scott Mickelson	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-015796
Petitioner:	Kathleen Wiedeman	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Keith Wiedeman	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.

3. The Court notes that Petitioner filed an At Issue Memorandum even through there is no Response on file. The At Issue Memo is ordered stricken.

4. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016092
Petitioner:	Denise Styler	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Lisa Styler	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016094
Petitioner:	Katrina Daniel	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Justin Carbone	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. One of the following:

i. FL-220 Response from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner.

3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016117
Petitioner:	Mirian Martinez-Ramirez	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Arturo Aguilera-Aranda	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.

b. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Respondent.

c. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL20 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016120
Petitioner:	Amanda Roberts	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Jeffrey Roberts	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Corrected FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016121
Petitioner:	Michael Kent	Attorney: Candence Gettys
Respondent:	Toni Kent	Attorney: Nancy Christie

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL20-016124
Petitioner:	Bodhi Dulac	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Amanda Dulac	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016407
Petitioner:	Sean Chynoweth	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Catherine Chynoweth	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016412
Petitioner:	Lauren OBrien	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Steven Poncelet	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.

b. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Respondent.

c. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL20 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016415
Petitioner:	Morgan Phelan	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Sheila Phelan	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.

b. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Respondent.

c. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL20 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016420
Petitioner:	Kelly Parks	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Steven Avery	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016431
Petitioner:	Mary Long	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Donald Edelstein	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 05/06/2022 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Amended Petition and Summons on Amended Petition. (Proof of Service as filed does not state that).

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. Once there is a Proof of Service showing Proof of Service of Amended Petition Either FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016440
Petitioner:	Kelly Trueman	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Anders Gustavsson	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016441
Petitioner:	Alysha Shipman-Sleeth	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Owen Sleeth	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Corrected FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.

b. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.

c. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Respondent.

d. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL20 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016445
Petitioner:	Manuel Lopez	Attorney: Candence Gettys
Respondent:	Maria Diaz	Attorney: Kathy Lindsay

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016454
Petitioner:	Sara Mitchell	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Matthew MItchell	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Corrected FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. Corrected FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.

c. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.

d. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Respondent.

e. Local FL20 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016462
Petitioner:	Danetta Gonzales-Coleman	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Robert Coleman	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016464
Petitioner:	Kenley Jones	Attorney: Sean Patrick
Respondent:	Barry Jones	Attorney: W. Gregory Klein

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016490
Petitioner:	Brooke Mayfield	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Owen Brown	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served.

3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016535
Petitioner:	Kelly Melendez	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Michael Melendez	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner.

3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016767
Petitioner:	Dianna Alley-Siebecke	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	David Siebecke	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016772
Petitioner:	Katherine Wilkes	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Maurice Wilkes	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016781
Petitioner:	Nelly Nichols	Attorney: Laura B. Strasser (Ltd. Scope)
Respondent:	William Nichols	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016786
Petitioner:	Marianne Lunde	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Eligio Savatore	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016790
Petitioner:	Jerad Hioki	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Jennifer Hioki	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Corrected Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. Proof of Service does not show the address at which Respondent was served.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016791
Petitioner:	Bobbi Page	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Sid Page	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016797
Petitioner:	Vicki Denny	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Scott Yelenic	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Corrected FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016799
Petitioner:	Stephen Finley	Attorney: Megan Sasaki
Respondent:	Lindsey Finley	Attorney: Joseph J. Bell

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016801
Petitioner:	Jason Bice	Attorney: William Phillips
Respondent:	Mechan Bice	Attorney: Jennifer Granger

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016803
Petitioner:	Brooke Parkhouse	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Caitlin Parkhouse	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner if Respondent does not file Response within time allowed by order of Commissioner LaChance. .

3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016805
Petitioner:	Roberta Hondle	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Russell Tullar	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

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

______________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016807
Petitioner:	Deborah Senneca-Powell	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Michael Powell	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016808
Petitioner:	Nicole Regnier	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Jesse Hanshaw	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016821
Petitioner:	Cara Rogers	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Thomas Rogers	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016827
Petitioner:	Brenda Eccarius	Attorney: Sara Thompson
Respondent:		Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016834
Petitioner:	Bryan Lopin	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Brittany Lopin	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016835
Petitioner:	Mason Emmett	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Breana Lee	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016837
Petitioner:	Devon Folden	Attorney: Cleat Walters, III
Respondent:	William Folden	Attorney: James-Philip Anderson

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016839
Petitioner:	Greg Van der Veen	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Janet Witharm	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

b. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016849
Petitioner:	Schirin Chams-Diba	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Ryan Sijan	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Corrected Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. Once Corrected Proof of Service has been received,

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016853
Petitioner:	Desiree Becerra-Brito	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Rafael Brito	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. Corrected Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.

b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

c. Once corrected Proof of Service has been received, the Court requires one of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. 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 11/04/2022, 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 05/06/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL21-016857
Petitioner:	Lindia Fleek	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	William Fleek	Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 11/04/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:

a. One of the following:

i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR

ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR

iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner.

3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/04/2022, 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.

______________________________________________

April 1, 2022 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference Calendar

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.

If either party wishes to object to the tentative decision and appear in Court on the date stated above, that party must notify the other party and the Court Clerk by telephone to 530-362-4309 Ext. 8 or by email to nccounter@nccourt.net no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the current Status Conference date of 04/01/2022. If neither party gives this notice, the Tentative Decision will be adopted as the Order of the Court.
If neither party gives that notice, your appearance on 04/01/2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary.
Both parties are advised that no Judgment has been entered. No Judgment or other orders will be entered automatically. Moving forward with this case will require action from at least one party.
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. 4. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
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.
If both parties opt out of the status conference, 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.
Submission of a settlement agreement and Judgment documents will vacate the Status Conference only after the Judge has approved the Judgment.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 19-014874
Petitioner:	Beverly Sample	Attorney: W. Gregory Klein
Respondent:	Ronald Sample	Attorney: Self-Represented

This case was filed on 01/09/2019, more than three years ago. Petitioner’s attorney is advised that the Court intends to dismiss the case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.250 if Proof of Service of the Summons and Petition is not filed on or before April 15, 2022.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 19-015416
Petitioner:	Kendra DeOliveira	Attorney: Megan Sasaki (Ltd Scope)
Respondent:	Virgilio DeOliveira	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. The Court notes that this case was filed on 10/02/2019, more than three years before the next status conference date stated above. If Proof of Service of the Summons and Petition has not been filed with the Court before the next status conference date, the case will be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.250.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. Once it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition have been served, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 19-015440
Petitioner:	Shawna Campbell	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Ehron Phillips	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. Parties have not complied with the last two Status Conference Orders.
The following are still required:
1. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.
2. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 19-015445
Petitioner:	Hailey Johnson	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	James Johnson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. Parties have not complied with the last Status Conference Order.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. (Final Declaration was filed 12/31/2019, but there is no Preliminary Declaration as required by Family Code Section 2104).
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. (Final Declaration was filed 12/31/2019, but there is no Preliminary Declaration as required by Family Code Section 2104).
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference. __________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 20-015585
Petitioner:	David Braut	Attorney: Laura Strasser
Respondent:	Normaini Braut	Attorney: Chandra Miller

Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 20-015667
Petitioner:	Hannah Korn	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Thomas Smith	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 20-015740
Petitioner:	Lisa Krason	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Scott Krason	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 20-015762
Petitioner:	Joel Bright	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Schuyler Bright	Attorney: Megan Sasaki

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 20-016017
Petitioner:	Donald Fagundes	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Stephanie Fagundes	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 20-016025
Petitioner:	Shannon Banks	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Gary Banks	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.
2. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 20-016046
Petitioner:	Elizabeth Lawson	Attorney: Shawn O'Brien
Respondent:	David Lawson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 20-016055
Petitioner:	Lucy Ward	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Ari Ratzer	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 20-016075
Petitioner:	Gary Reedy	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Katrina Schneider	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
1. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.
2. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 21-016366
Petitioner:	Sandra DeMara	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Robert DeMara	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No.	FL 21-016375
Petitioner:	Jennifer Ham	Attorney: Deise Dirks (Ltd Scope)
Respondent:	Hilton Ham	Attorney: Trevor Hensley

Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 21-016410
Petitioner:	Sarah Childs	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Mark Martinez	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 21-016690
Petitioner:	Tracey Woods	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Cynthia Martin	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 21-016705
Petitioner:	Jennifer Krill	Attorney: Jennifer Granger
Respondent:	Cynthia Moya	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL 21-016728
Petitioner:	Simone Weit	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Scott Weidert	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016729
Petitioner:	Cynthia Ott	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Paul Ott	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016731
Petitioner:	Lindsey Eaton	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Gregory Eaton	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of FL-110 Summons and blank FL-120 Response OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. The Court notes that proof of service indicates that only FL-100 Petition was served.
2. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016742
Petitioner:	Lana Hilger	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Ronald Hilger	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The Court notes that Judgment documents have been submitted, but have not yet been processed.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016743
Petitioner:	Anai Waznablank	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Rene Medina	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016747
Petitioner:	Stuart Beach	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Janet Beach	Attorney: Joseph J. Bell

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016748
Petitioner:	Jennifer Melzer	Attorney: Matthew Oliveri
Respondent:	Derrick Melzer	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Judgment documents reflecting the relief requested in the Petition OR Agreement that parties are working out settlement agreement. The Court notes that default was entered on 11/12/2021.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016754
Petitioner:	Joseph Weathers	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Morgan Whitmore	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Judgment documents reflecting the relief requested in the Petition OR Agreement that parties are working out settlement agreement. The Court notes that default was entered on 03/08/2022.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016757
Petitioner:	Krista Conrad	Attorney: Cleat Walters, III
Respondent:	Alan Conrad	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016761
Petitioner:	Calvin Keene	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Ashley Mahar	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016764
Petitioner:	Bryan McAlister	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Cassandra McAlister	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The Court notes that Judgment documents have been submitted and the file is in review process. If the Judgment is approved, this hearing will be dropped.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016769
Petitioner:	Terri Wolfe	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Peter Wolfe	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016778
Petitioner:	Esther Pearcy	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Adam Pearcy	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response 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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016779
Petitioner:	Heather Lewis	Attorney: Megan Sasaki
Respondent:	Bradley Lewis	Attorney: James-Philip Anderson

Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016830
Petitioner:	Douglas Johnson	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Dianna Johnson	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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 from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016842
Petitioner:	Patty Tims	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Thomas Tims	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
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.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

04/01/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No.	FL21-016854
Petitioner:	Karyn Packard	Attorney: Nancy Christie
Respondent:	Robert Packard	Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 10/07/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
The following are still required:
1. Re-submit Judgment documents with Agreement.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 10/07/2022, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

March 4, 2022 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference Calendar

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.
A. If either party wishes to object to the tentative decision and appear in Court on the date stated above, that party must notify the other party and the Court Clerk by telephone to 530-362-4309 Ext. 8 or by email to nccounter@nccourt.net no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the current Status Conference date of 03/04/2022. If neither party gives this notice, the Tentative Decision will be adopted as the Order of the Court.
B. If neither party gives that notice, your appearance on 03/04/2022 at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary UNLESS the order in your case requires that appearance.
C. Both parties are advised that no Judgment has been entered. No Judgment or other orders will be entered automatically. Moving forward with this case will require action from at least one party.
D. 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. 4. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
E. 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.
F. If both parties opt out of the status conference, 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.
G. Submission of a settlement agreement and Judgment documents will vacate the Status Conference only after the Judge has approved the Judgment.
______________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 19-014807
Petitioner: Kelly Ferrante

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Taylor Ferrante
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:
a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. The Court notes that this case was filed on 01/09/2019, more than three years before the next status conference date stated above. If Proof of Service of the Summons and Petition has not been filed with the Court before the next status conference date, the case will be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.250.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 19-014866
Petitioner: Jessica Battenfeld
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Christopher Tzalemtzis
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
b. One of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 19-014867
Petitioner: Shaina West
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Jeramie West
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. The Court notes that this case was filed on 02/04/2019, more than three years before the next status conference date stated above. If Proof of Service of the Summons and Petition has not been filed with the Court before the next status conference date, the case will be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.250.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 19-015197
Petitioner: Dawn Longinotti
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Thomas Longinotti
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
b. One of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________

03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 19-015495
Petitioner: Charles Williams
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Stephanie Williams
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.

2. The following are still required:
a. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

Case No. FL 20-015977
Petitioner: Calvin Crawford
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Jabreia Crawford
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed. The Court notes that certified mail service is acceptable on out of state Respondent only if the receipt card has been signed, returned and attached to FL-115. This has not been received.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
c. One of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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.
d. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 20-015978
Petitioner: Michael Gibson
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Angela Davis
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 20-015982
Petitioner: Nicole Burkes
Attorney: Marcia Randle

Respondent: Anthony Montanino
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISIONCase No. FL 20-016004
Petitioner: Ashley Duran
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Anthony Duran
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. One of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016254
Petitioner: Melissa Dietrick
Attorney: Greg Klein

Respondent: David Dietrick
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
b. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016294
Petitioner: Chameli Ardaugh
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Nicholas Ardaugh
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
b. One of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016305
Petitioner: Jack Emery
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Date Emery
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016319
Petitioner: Karen Ranger
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Jody Ranger
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.
b. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Respondent.
c. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016323
Petitioner: Cynthia Contreras
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Robert Shipley
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016660
Petitioner: Alexis Ricci
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Jack Ricci
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
b. One of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016671
Petitioner: Jeremy McReynolds
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Jessica McReynolds
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Corrected OR New Proof of Service of Summons that complies with Code of Civil Procedure. The Court notes that the FL-115 as filed states that the pleadings were mailed, but does not attach FL 117 showing Respondent�s signature. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
c. Once there has been correct service of process, the Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016672
Petitioner: WIlliam Jackson
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Barbara Jackson
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
b. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016673
Petitioner: Charles Johnck
Attorney: Candence Gettys

Respondent: Michelle Johnck
Attorney: Cleat Walters, III

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016682
Petitioner: Crystal Betito
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Paul Betito
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-01683
Petitioner: Edward Abbott
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Lori Abbott
Attorney: Greg Klein

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Petitioner.
b. Local FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire from Respondent.
c. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016685
Petitioner: Rhyannon Von Stockhausen
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Henk Von Stockhausen
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Corrected Proof of Service of Summons for Amended Petition. FL-115 filed on 02/10/2022 does not specify that Amended Petition and Summons on Amended Petition were served. FL-115 also needs correction to state the date and time of service in item 3.a
b. Once corrected FL-115 has been filed, the Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Amended Petition 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016686
Petitioner: Patricial Dewlaney
Attorney: Nancy Christie

Respondent: Dennis Dewlaney
Attorney: James-Phillip Anderson

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016687
Petitioner: Marty Padilla
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Cinda Padilla
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016689
Petitioner: Crystal Johnson
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Dwayne Johnson
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016693
Petitioner: Matthew Cooper
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Danelle Cooper
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
b. One of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016694
Petitioner: Tiffany Lujan
Attorney: Candence Gettys

Respondent: Angelo Lujan
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
b. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016700
Petitioner: Teresa Thomas
Attorney: Cleat Walters, III

Respondent: Ryan Thomas
Attorney: Sara Thompson

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016701
Petitioner: Peter Luckerath
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Deyra Fajardo-Luckerath
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016707
Petitioner: Jody Ahlquist-Mough
Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: David Mough
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR Dismissal of case if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
b. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
c. There is no Proof of Service of Summons and Petition in the file. The Court requires one of the following:
i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 from Respondent, OR
ii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response OR
iii. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016709
Petitioner: Kelly Speck
Attorney: Stacey Herhuskey

Respondent: Kurt Speck
Attorney: Laura Strasser (Ltd scope)

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
b. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016714
Petitioner: Charles Bicking
Attorney: Candence Gettys

Respondent: Rianna McGee
Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/02/2022, 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 two (2) court days before the continued date stated above to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary.
2. The following are still required:
a. FL-141 Declaration Re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
b. 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 09/02/2022, 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.
__________________________________________________________________
03/04/2022, 9:00 a.m. Department 3 STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION
Case No. FL 21-016719
Petitioner: Hamilton Bryan
Attorney: Brooke Stephens

Respondent: Julie Bryan
Attorney: Evan Samuelson

1. Both parties are represented by an attorney. 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Judicial Branch of California

COVID-19 Update:

Nevada City

Truckee

Case No.	TFL 20-7642
Petitioner:	Tynaia Kirkpatrick	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Sean Kirkpatrick	Attorney: Self-Represented

Case No.	TFL 21-7805
Petitioner:	Katrina Rodarte-Nunez	Attorney: Self-epresented
Respondent:	Rogelio Nunez-Zepeda	Attorney: Self-Represented

Case No.	TFL 21-7858
Petitioner:	Mary Hyatt	Attorney: Rachel Crus
Respondent:	Kurt Hyatt	Attorney: Self-Represented

Case No.	TFL 21-7922
Petitioner:	Tracie Connors	Attorney: Mary Jones
Respondent:	Jeffrey Connors	Attorney: Eve Gravell

Case No.	TFL 21-7923
Petitioner:	Meredith Walker	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Thomas Walker	Attorney: Self-Represented

Case No.	TFL 22-8028
Petitioner:	Jesse Smith	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Samantha Smith	Attorney: Self-Represented

Case No.	TFL 22-8034
Petitioner:	Leslie Sanchez	Attorney: Self-Represented
Respondent:	Salvador Herrera Machuca	Attorney: Self-Represented

COVID-19 Update:

Tentative Rulings

Law & Motion

Probate

Case Management Conferences

Guardianships

Family Law

Case Management Conferences

Family Law