Tentative Rulings

Nevada City

Click on any of the links below to view the current tentative rulings in that category, or call (530) 362-4309.

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

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

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

June 6, 2025 Civil Tentative Rulings

1. CU0001696 George Watson vs. General Motors, LLC

Defendant General Motors’ demurrer and motion to strike are dropped as moot. A first amended complaint was filed on May 23, 2025. The case management conference is continued to July 15, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., in Dept. 6. No appearances are required.

2. CU22-086271 Mercedes Benz vs. Energy Based Solutions, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for attorney’s fees is granted.

“The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally ‘begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate….’” “[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award….” Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154. Trial courts properly may use equitable considerations to reduce the lodestar amount of attorney fees, including on the basis that certain fees were unnecessary. See EnPalm, LLC v. The Teitler Family Trust, etc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 778.

In the present case, the court already determined that plaintiff is the prevailing party and is entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs. The court finds that the requested hourly rates, which range from $200 per hour to $350 per hour, are reasonable for this region. In addition, given the lengthy litigation in this case, which included 21 calendared hearings, the number of hours sought are reasonable. The court finds that attorney’s fees of $60,505.00 (including fees associated with preparation of this motion) are appropriate. In addition, plaintiff is entitled to costs of $6,468.15.

3. CU0001973 Patricia Healey vs. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

USAA’s motion to compel plaintiff to respond to and answer Dr. Goz’s questions regarding her medical history at her independent medical exam is granted in part.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.220(a) provides, in pertinent part, “In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff .…” The statute, on its face, does not authorize the examiner to inquire about the plaintiff’s medical history. Reasonably construed, however, an examiner should be able to ask limited medical history questions as may be necessary to conduct the physical examination and to formulate an intelligent opinion about the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. See Sharff v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (1955) 44 Cal.2d 508, 510 (“It has been held that the court may order a plaintiff in a personal injury action to undergo a physical examination by the defendant's doctor. The doctor should, of course, be free to ask such questions as may be necessary to enable him to formulate an intelligent opinion regarding the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, but he should not be allowed to make inquiries into matters not reasonably related to the legitimate scope of the examination.”); see also, e.g., Plante v. Stack (R.I. 2015) 109 A.3d 846, 855, fn. 6 (“The doctor must be permitted to take the party's history and to ask such other questions that will enable him or her to formulate an intelligent opinion concerning the nature and extent of the party's injuries.” quoting 8B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure (2010) § 2236 at 297 and citing cases).

The court orders the physical examination to be conducted and will permit limited questioning by the physician related to pertinent medical history, i.e., plaintiff’s preexisting relevant injuries, plaintiff's progress, plaintiff's treatment, and plaintiff's current condition. Counsel for plaintiff may be present at the examination to object to any perceived inappropriate questioning by the examiner.

USAA’s request for sanctions is denied; plaintiff had substantial justification for its opposition to the requested relief.

5-30-35 Civil Tentative Rulings

1. CL0002037 Joseph Pryor v. S.A.

No appearances are required. The court, on its own motion, continued the hearing by written order from May 30, 2025, to July 25, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.

2. CU0000090 Matthew Palleschi, et al v. Daniel Fraiman Construction, Inc. et al

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted.

“The Court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading .…” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1). Leave to amend may be granted at any stage in the proceedings, including trial. See id. § 576; Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761. Motions for leave to amend are directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.

Firstly, the court finds the declaration filed in support of the motion and the attached pleading (tracking the changes) are sufficient to put the court and parties on notice of the complaint changes sought and substantially comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

Secondly, while the instant motion has been filed close to the currently set trial date, the court is persuaded that the interests of justice favor allowance of the amendment and resolution of the same, as necessary, by the trier of fact. In order to avoid any potential prejudice to any party, the

court will entertain any request to continue the trial date or reopen limited discovery for the purpose of addressing the new cause of action.

The proposed amended complaint shall be filed and served by June 9, 2025.

3. CU0001605 Andrew Johnson vs. Donald Judas

Defendant’s motion to quash the deposition of Donald Judas is continued on the court’s own motion to July 11, 2025, at 10:00 am in Dept. 6, to be heard with plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Donald Judas.

4. CU21-085893 Tom Amesbury, et al. vs. Barbara Heger, et al.

Defendant Heger’s motion to exclude broker claims from arbitration is denied.

Defendant contends that the Third District Court of Appeal found that defendant acted solely as a seller, not a broker, and that the broker claim is not subject to arbitration. The court is not persuaded.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal made it clear that when a broker, like Heger, sells her own property, rather than the property of another, she is not acting as a broker. “[A] broker like Heger who sells her own property… wears only one hat (i.e., the hat of a seller who just so happens to be a broker).” Based in part on that conclusion, the appellate court rejected the suggestion by plaintiffs that the third-party exception barred arbitration and instead directed the trial court to grant Heger’s motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court did not specifically opine that the broker claims were not subject to arbitration.

In any event, the issue raised by defendant is a non-issue for purposes of arbitration. Heger was a seller who happened to be a broker. Heger is named as seller/trustee in all six claims. (There are four claims in the December 2021 amended complaint against defendant in both her capacity as trustee and broker (claims 1, 2, 5 and 6) and two against defendant in her capacity as trustee solely (claims 3 and 4)). All six trustee claims are indisputably subject to arbitration. To the extent that the amended complaint includes claims against Heger as broker, those appear to be superfluous given the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that Heger was acting in the legal capacity of seller, not broker.

The motion is denied and the parties are directed to proceed with arbitration forthwith.

5. CU0001902 Travis Gould vs. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al.

No appearances are required. Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint has been continued by stipulation of the parties to July 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.

6. CU0001945 Jaymon Maxwell Campbell v. Jersey Mike's Subs, et al.

Defendants’ unopposed demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part.

Standard of Review

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the factual allegations in the complaint and whether facts are pled with sufficient certainty and particularity. See Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 610-611; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e). Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. See Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43. Where a complaint fails to adequately plead all necessary elements of a cause of action, a demurrer is properly sustained. See Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 884- 85. “Where a demurrer is sustained … as to the original complaint, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion if the pleading does not show on its face that it is incapable of amendment.” Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1852.

Second Cause of Action: Labor Code section 351

The demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

First and foremost, Labor Code “section 351 does not provide a private cause of action.” Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 592, 603. In addition, Labor Code section 351 prohibits employers and their “agents” from taking any portion of gratuities left for employees, but it does not prohibit mandatory tip pooling arrangements among employees who are not agents. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege any specific facts establishing that either the general or assistant managers at issue exercised any of the enumerated powers necessary to qualify as “agents” under the Labor Code. See, e.g., Avidor v. Sutter's Place, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1439, 1451 (“Section 350, subdivision (d), defines ‘Agent’ as “every person other than the employer having the authority to hire or discharge any employee or supervise, direct, or control the acts of employees.’ ”).

Fourth Cause of Action: Labor Code section 558

The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

Labor Code section 558 does not create a private right of action. See Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Mgmt., Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1132 (“Although PAGA actions can serve to indirectly enforce certain wage order provisions by enforcing statutes that require compliance with wage orders …, the PAGA does not create any private right of action to directly enforce a wage order.”), disapproved on other grounds by ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175.

Fifth & Sixth Causes of Action: Retaliation

The demurrer to the fifth and sixth causes of action is sustained with leave to amend.

As currently pled, the claims lack sufficient factual allegations. A prima facie claim under Labor Code section 1102.5(b) requires the plaintiff to plead (1) a protected disclosure of information, (2) a reasonable belief that the disclosure revealed a legal violation, (3) an adverse employment action, and (4) a causal connection between the two. See Ross v. County of Riverside (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 580, 592. Plaintiff does not allege that he made a disclosure to a person with authority or to a government agency, nor does he identify any specific law he believed was violated. Instead, he vaguely alleges that he “raised concerns” about tip pooling to coworkers, which is legally insufficient to constitute a protected disclosure.

Similarly, a claim under Labor Code section 98.6 requires a showing of (1) protected activity, (2) an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal nexus. See Yau v. Allen (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 144, 154. Plaintiff claims his hours were reduced after complaining about the tip pool, but fails to allege when or how he complained, to whom the complaints were made, or who made the decision to alter his schedule. Moreover, plaintiff concedes he remains employed. A mere temporary reduction in hours, without a formal adverse action such as suspension, demotion, or termination, is not sufficient to establish a materially adverse employment action under section 98.6. See McRae v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 377, 386.

Seventh Cause of Action: Failure to Pay Wages

The demurrer to the seventh cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

Plaintiff’s seventh claim for failure to pay wages under Labor Code sections 1194 and 204 is legally deficient. As to section 1194, plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to support a claim for unpaid minimum wages. Section 1194 only provides a remedy where an employer fails to pay minimum wage for hours actually worked. Plaintiff’s allegations—that he was required to participate in “off-the-clock group chats, training, or other tasks”—are vague and conclusory.

Plaintiff also fails to state a claim under section 204, which governs the timing—not the amount—of wage payments. Plaintiff alleges no facts showing that wages earned in any particular pay period were paid late.

First Cause of Action: Unfair Competition

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to this claim.

Because the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) does not create independent rights, a plaintiff must plead a predicate unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. The underlying statutory claims, i.e., the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action, have failed; as such, a UCL claim necessarily fails as well. See Krantz v. BT Visual Images, L.L.C. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 164, 178.

Third Cause of Action: Failure to Pay Itemize Wages

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to this cause of action.

Labor Code section 226 requires plaintiffs to demonstrate not only that wage statements were inaccurate but that that the employer’s failure was knowing and intentional. See Lab. Code, § 226 (“(a) An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, shall furnish to their employee … an accurate itemized statement in writing showing [nine categories of information related to wages and hours]”;”(e)(1) An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or [fifty to one hundred dollars per pay period], not to exceed an aggregate penalty of four thousand dollars ($4,000)….”). Plaintiff’s claim, as pled, does not adequately allege what specific data was inaccurately reported or that the employer acted with the required mens rea.

Conclusion

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, in part, as noted. Any amended complaint must be served and filed by June 9, 2025.

5-23-25 Civil Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001887 Paul Kolbus v. William Hackett

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to expunge lis pendens is granted.

Firstly, Code of Civil Procedure section 405.21 provides:

An attorney of record in an action may sign a notice of pendency of action. Alternatively, a judge of the court in which an action that includes a real property claim is pending may, upon request of a party thereto, approve a notice of pendency of action. A notice of pendency of action shall not be recorded unless (a) it has been signed by the attorney of record, (b) it is signed by a party acting in propria persona and approved by a judge as provided in this section, or (c) the action is subject to Section 405.6.

Here, defendant is appearing in propria persona and failed to have his two notices of lis pendens approved by a judge. As such, the notice recorded in this action are invalid.

Secondly, Code of Civil Procedure section 405.22 provides:

Except in actions subject to Section 405.6, the claimant shall, prior to recordation of the notice, cause a copy of the notice to be mailed, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to all known addresses of the parties to whom the real property claim is adverse and to all owners of record of the real property affected by the real property claim as shown by the latest county assessment roll. If there is no known address for service on an adverse party or owner, then as to that party or owner a declaration under penalty of perjury to that effect may be recorded instead of the proof of service required above, and the service on that party or owner shall not be required. Immediately following recordation, a copy of the notice shall also be filed with the court in which the action is pending. Service shall also be made immediately and in the same manner upon each adverse party later joined in the action.

Code of Civil Procedure section 405.32 further provides:

Any notice of pendency of action shall be void and invalid as to any adverse party or owner of record unless the requirements of Section 405.22 are met for that party or owner and a proof of service in the form and content specified in Section 1013a has been recorded with the notice of pendency of action.

Here, there is no proof of service demonstrating that the notices were served on the other party prior to recordation. As defendant has failed to comply with the service requirements of this statute, the notices of lis pendens are void and invalid.

Lastly, Code of Civil Procedure section 405.32 provides, in relevant part:

In proceedings under this chapter, the court shall order that the notice be expunged if the court finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim.

Here, defendant has failed to demonstrate that he has a real property claim. Unlawful detainer actions deal with possession of real property, not ownership of real property. As such, there is no real property claim asserted in this action.

Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees of $1,800.00 as prevailing party to this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38.

2. CL0002789 Masters Team Mortgage vs. Ronald Pitts, et al.

Defendants’ motion to quash service of summons is denied.

The proof of service is not dated; as such, there is no valid proof of service of the motion on plaintiff as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). The motion is denied on this procedural ground alone.

In any event, the motion lacks merit. Firstly, there is a proof of personal service as to defendants Ronald Pitts and Branielle Pitts. Evidence Code section 647 creates a legal presumption that the facts stated in a proof of service filed by a registered process server are true and that the service of process is valid. Here, defendants have not asserted any facts to the contrary.

Secondly, a motion to quash is not an appropriate vehicle to challenge the adequacy of the complaint. See Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 402; Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 616.

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

Defendants Fakiri and Cheema’s motion to stay acting pending arbitration is granted.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides, in relevant part, “[i]f a court of competent jurisdiction . . . has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate.” Further, “it is irrelevant under the statute whether the movant is a party to the arbitration agreement.” Marcus v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 204, 209. “Any party to a judicial proceeding ‘is entitled to a stay of those proceedings whenever (1) the arbitration of a controversy has been ordered, and (2) that controversy is also an issue involved in the pending judicial action.’ ” Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1152. “A controversy can be a single question of law or fact, and a stay shall be issued upon proper motion if the court has ordered arbitration of a controversy that is also an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before it. Id. at 1152-1153. “The purpose of the statutory stay is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved.” Federal Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1370,1374.

Here, the court has previously granted a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action as to other defendants. The court must respect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and preserve the status quo until arbitration is resolved.

This action is stayed pending the arbitration. The currently set trial and related dates are vacated. A case management conference regarding status of arbitration is set for November 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall file a status report as to the arbitration by November 17, 2025.

4. CU0001664 Carla Jefferson vs. Heating-Cooling Service Co.

CU0001869 California FAIR Plan vs. Glenn David Jones, et al.

Defendants’ unopposed motions to consolidate case numbers CU0001664 and CU0001869 are hereby granted.

Both actions stem from the same alleged incident, and involve common questions of law and fact. Moreover, consolidation is necessary to best serve the interests of justice and judicial economy, and to avoid the risk of prejudice and/or inconsistent verdicts. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1048 and Rules of Court, rule 3.350.

Pursuant to rule 3.350(b), case CU0001664 is deemed the lead file. All future filing shall contain this case number only. The case management conference currently set for June 30, 2025, at 9:00 am in Dept. 6 is confirmed.

5. CU0001842 Charles Murdock vs. Jodi Michelle Andrews

Defendant Ringen’s motion to strike punitive damages is granted with leave to amend.

The first amended complaint does not sufficiently allege that defendant Ringen personally engaged in conduct with malice or oppression when he entrusted his vehicle to defendant Andrews. The operative complaint also does not sufficiently allege that defendant Ringen had any knowledge of defendant Andrews’ unfitness or inability to drive the vehicle such that defendant Ringen could be said to have acted with malice or oppression. See Code Civ. Proc. 3294; Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895–896 (“a conscious disregard of the safety of others may constitute malice…. In order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.”); see also RST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1255, 1271 (punitive damages potentially available where managing agent “had advance knowledge of ... [employee's] ... unfitness ... and employed him ... with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others....”).

Any second amended complaint shall be served and filed by June 2, 2025.

6. CU0001851 Paul Edward Gilbert vs. Clear Recon Corp., et al.

The motion for tender, the demand for oath, and the two motions to quash are continued on the court’s own motion to June 6, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6, due to the full bench recusal in the present case. A new judge has been assigned.

7. CU0001860 Matthew Vickers vs. Ariana Vickers

Plaintiff’s motions to compel defendant’s discovery responses are denied.

In the present case, at the request of plaintiff, default was entered against defendant on March 11, 2025. Any response to the discovery propounded by plaintiff on February 15, 2025 was due 30 days after service (extended by the means of service), i.e., after March 17, 2025. See Code Civ. Proc. 2030.260(a), 2031.260, 2016.050.

“A default ‘cuts off the defendant from making any further opposition or objection to the relief which plaintiff's complaint shows he is entitled to demand.’ ” Rios v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 871, 887, quoting Title Insurance etc. Co. v. King etc. Co. (1912) 162 Cal. 44, 46. "After a default, a defendant is ‘ “ ‘out of court’ ” ’ and cannot take any further steps in the cause affecting the plaintiff's right of action until the default is set aside in a proper proceeding.” Ibid. (italics added); Garcia v. Politis (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1479 (“a case in which a defendant's default has been taken necessarily has no adversarial quality and the defaulted defendant would have no right to participate in the motion.” ). Indeed, “ ‘[a] default confesses all the material facts in the complaint.’ ”Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. King Land & Improv. Co. (1912) 162 Cal. 44, 46, cited with approval by Sass v. Cohen (2020) 10 Cal.5th 861, 865.

As the default of the sole defendant has been entered, defendant had no right to respond to the discovery requests and cannot be compelled to do so at this time. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

8. CU0001973 Patricia Healey vs. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

USAA’s motion to compel plaintiff to respond to and answer Dr. Goz’s questions regarding her medical history at her independent medical exam is granted in part.

USAA’s request for sanctions is denied; plaintiff had substantial justification for its opposition to the requested relief.

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

Defendant Malone’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike is granted.

As an initial matter, in its discretion, the court has read and considered plaintiff’s untimely opposition.

Evidentiary Rulings

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted in its entirety. Defendant’s evidentiary objections to plaintiff’s declaration are sustained as follows: ¶5 (hearsay), ¶6 (hearsay), ¶10 (hearsay), ¶11 (lack of personal knowledge, speculation), ¶12 (lack of personal knowledge, speculation).

Standard of Review

“Section 425.16 posits ... a two-step process for determining whether an action is a SLAPP. First, the court decides whether the defendant has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.... If the court finds that such a showing has been made, it must then determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. Only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute—i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even minimal merit—is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute.” Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 278–279 (quotations and citations omitted).

Threshold Showing

The first step in analyzing the present motion is to determine if the challenged causes of action arise from protected activity. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(e) sets forth activities protected by the statute:

(1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or (4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.

Here, the allegations of the complaint squarely place the claims within the definition of protected activities. Specifically, the complaint alleges: “Defendants KM and SS worked in concert to use the civil law process and the family law process to disparage Plaintiff WF with false allegations to secure financial renumeration and use said false salacious allegations in the family law matter for custody purposes, with the added benefit of securing additional financial renumeration through the civil and family law process.” Complaint 2:11-16.

Plaintiff’s argument that custody proceedings in family law cases are not “judicial proceedings” covered by the anti-SLAPP statute is incorrect. Notes the court in Sipple v. Foundation for National Progress (1999) 71 Cal App 4th 226: “We conclude that the custody dispute itself clearly comes within section 425.16, subdivision(e)(1) as it is a . . . ‘ judicial proceeding or any official proceeding authorized by law’. . . . Hence. . . respondents need not separately show that these statements concern an issue of public interest.” Ibid at 238; see Begier v. Strom (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th 887, 882 (“insofar as plaintiff alleges defendant made false accusations within the dissolution action, defendant’s statements are privileged and cannot give rise to a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”)

Thus, the threshold showing of protected activities has been met.

Probability of Prevailing on the Merits

The second step is to determine whether Plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits.

To establish a probability of prevailing, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited. For purposes of this inquiry, the trial court considers the pleadings and evidentiary submissions of both the plaintiff and the defendant ; though the court does not weigh the credibility or comparative probative strength of competing evidence, it should grant the motion if, as a matter of law, the defendant's evidence supporting the motion defeats the plaintiff's attempt to establish evidentiary support for the claim. In making this assessment it is the court's responsibility ... to accept as true the evidence favorable to the plaintiff.... The plaintiff need only establish that his or her claim has “minimal merit” to avoid being stricken as a SLAPP.

Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 291 (quotations and citations omitted).

Abuse of Process

The elements of a cause of action for abuse of process are: (1) a defendant must have acted with an ulterior purpose; and (2) there must be a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. See Templeton Feed & Grain v. Ralston Purina Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 461, 466; Friedman v. Stadum (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 775, 779 (“For the tort of abuse of process, the plaintiff must allege a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. The process must be misused, i.e., it must be used for a purpose other than that for which the process is designed.”)

Here, the complaint alleges no facts supporting the claim; specifically, plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence demonstrating the same. Finally, the claim appears to be premised on the conduct by defendants in the underlying family law and employment matters. That conduct is protected by the litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47(b). In short, plaintiff cannot show a reasonable probability of prevailing on this claim.

Malicious Prosecution

The elements to a cause of action for malicious prosecution are: (1) an action commenced by or at the direction of defendant; (2) pursued to a legal termination favorable to the plaintiff; (3) brought without probable cause; and (4) initiated with malice. See Van Audenhove v. Perry (2017) 11 Cal. App. 5th 915, 918.

At bar, plaintiff has failed to include in his complaint any allegations supporting any claim for malicious prosecution. He has also failed to offer any evidence demonstrating the same.[i] Plaintiff cannot show a reasonable probability of prevailing on this claim.^{^[ii]}

Defamation

The elements of a cause of action for defamation are: (1) intentional publication by defendant; (2) of statement of fact; (3) that is false; (4) defamatory; (5) unprivileged; and (6) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damages. E.g., Taus v. Loftus  (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683.

Here, plaintiff’s defamation claims against defendant arise out of defendant’s alleged statements in the family law and employment actions. Plaintiff’s declaration statements regarding defamation, even if admissible, also plainly arise out of the family law matter. The alleged defamatory statements are protected under the litigation privilege. Plaintiff cannot show a reasonable probability of prevailing on this claim.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

“[T]o state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress a plaintiff must show: (1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.” Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1259.

Here, all of the purported outrageous conduct that plaintiff alleges in his complaint, or that is described in his declaration, arises out of either defendant Malone’s employment action or are due to defendant Malone’s participation in the family law action. As such, this conduct is protected by the litigation privilege. Plaintiff cannot show a reasonable probability of prevailing on this claim.

Conclusion

Defendant Malone’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike is granted.

[i] In addition, the court takes judicial notice of case CU22-086160. That case has not yet gone to trial. Plaintiff obviously has not pursued any legal action to a legal termination favorable to plaintiff.

[ii] The litigation privilege does not extend to actions for malicious prosecution and serves as no bar here. See Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1242

5-16-25 Revised Civil TRs

CU0000861 Patrick H. Dwyer vs. Dr. Andrea L. Harris et al
Defendants’ motion to stay action and vacate trial and related dates is granted.

Code of Civil Procedure section 128 grants a trial court the authority to preserve and enforce order, provide for the orderly conduct of its proceedings, control matters in the furtherance of justice, and control its process so as to conform to law and justice. “[A] court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.” OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141, citing, People v. Bell (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 323, 329 and Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254.

In the present case, the Vermont’s Rehabilitation Order provides, in pertinent part, “In order to maintain the status quo while the Rehabilitator assesses CARE RRG’s ability to meet its obligations in the normal course of business and to avoid prejudice to insureds resulting from the suspension of the Company’s payment of loss and defense obligations, the Court would, to the extent of its jurisdiction and the comity afforded its order, enjoin for ninety days the continuation or initiation of litigation against CARE RRG policyholders respecting events assertedly covered under its policies of insurance or against CARE RRG, its officers, directors, managers, employees or agents.”

The court, pursuant to its inherent powers and as an act of comity, finds that a brief stay of litigation through July 14, 2025 is necessary and appropriate in the furtherance of justice. It is also necessary and appropriate to vacate the July 22, 2025 trial and related dates. The court is favorably inclined to reset trial for October 28, 2025 or the earliest date thereafter convenient for the parties.

2. CU0001024 Walter Nicholas, et al vs. FCA US, LLC

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Standard of Review

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

Objections to Evidence

Defendant’s objection to plaintiffs’ declaration based on the failure to sign the declaration is sustained. The court need not address the other objections.

Request for Continuance

Plaintiffs’ request for a continuance for further discovery is denied. Plaintiffs have made no persuasive showing why the discovery they now seek could not have been initiated and completed in advance of their opposition deadline. On this record, plaintiffs have failed to exercise appropriate diligence in connection with the discovery at issue. See Braganza v. Albertson's LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 144, 156 (“a party who seeks a continuance under section 437c, subdivision (h), must show why the discovery necessary to oppose the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication could not have been completed sooner, and accordingly requires the court to grant the continuance.”).

Factual Background

Plaintiffs purchased a new 2019 Jeep Cherokee on September 15, 2018 from dealership John L. Sullivan Dodge Chrysler. The vehicle was manufactured by Defendant FCS. Plaintiffs allege various defects relating to the vehicle.

First Cause of Action-Civil Code section 1793.2(d)

“A plaintiff pursuing an action under the Act has the burden to prove that (1) the vehicle had a nonconformity covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle (the nonconformity element); (2) the vehicle was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer of the vehicle for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or his representative did not repair the nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts (the failure to repair element).” Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101, citing Civ. Code § 1793.2 and Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 878, 886-887. “The statute requires the manufacturer to afford the specified remedies of restitution or replacement if that manufacturer is unable to repair the vehicle ‘after a reasonable number of attempts.’ ‘Attempts’ is plural. The statute does not require the manufacturer to make restitution or replace a vehicle if it has had only one opportunity to repair that vehicle.” Silvio v. Ford Motor Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1208.

Here, it is undisputed that plaintiffs only presented their vehicle one time for a recall and that defendant had a single “attempt” to address the same. See UMF 4-5 (and supporting evidence). While plaintiffs argue in the opposition that a refusal to repair a defect may constitute a separate presentation/attempt, they failed to present any admissible evidence of a defect and presentation related thereto. Plaintiffs’ first cause of action fails as a matter of law.

Second Cause of Action-Civil Code section 1793.2(b)

To establish a violation of section 1793.2(b), a plaintiff must prove that: (1) plaintiff bought/leased a new motor vehicle from/distributed by/manufactured by defendant; (2) defendant gave plaintiff a written warranty; (3) the new motor vehicle had a defect that was covered by the warranty; and (4) defendant or its authorized repair facility failed to begin repairs within a reasonable time or complete repairs within 30 days so as to conform to the applicable warranties. CACI 3205, citing Civ. Code §§ 1794(a) and 1793.2(b).

Here, it is undisputed that plaintiffs only presented their vehicle one time for a recall for a period of one day. See UMF 4-6 (and supporting evidence). Plaintiff has failed to present any admissible evidence of a defect much less a defect which was not remedied within 30 days. Plaintiffs’ second cause of action fails as a matter of law.

Third Cause of Action-Civil Code Section 1793.2(a)(3)

Here, defendant presented evidence that it found no records indicating that any repairs were conducted on the vehicle and that there was solely one visit by plaintiffs for a warranty claim to reprogram the power control module. See UMF 4-6 (and supporting evidence). There is no evidence of a service visit to “effect repairs” during the express warranty period. Plaintiffs’ third cause of action fails as a matter of law.

Fourth Cause of Action-Implied Warranty of Merchantability

An implied warranty means the consumer goods must pass without objection in the trade under the contract description and are fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is sold. See Brand v. Hyundai Motor Am. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1546. Such implied warranty only extends for one year. See id. at 1549, citing Civil Code § 1791.1(c) and Atkinson v. Elk Corporation of Texas (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 212, 229–231 (“breach of implied warranty of merchantability need not be present at delivery, but may occur any time within first year after the sale”).

Plaintiffs’ cause of action fails as a matter of law because plaintiffs have presented no admissible evidence the vehicle experienced any defects at all, see UMF 4-6 (and supporting evidence), let alone any defects during the first year of ownership, such that the vehicle was not fit for the ordinary purposes for which it was sold. Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action fails as a matter of law.

Fifth Cause of Action-Fraudulent Concealment

“ ‘[T]he elements of an action for fraud and deceit based on concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.’ ” Bosch ma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.

In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendant sold the vehicle to plaintiffs without disclosing an alleged “transmission defect” which plaintiffs describe as “hesitation on acceleration, loss of power, hard and/or harsh shifts, and/or jerking.” Plaintiffs, however, have failed to present any admissible evidence to show that the vehicle experienced any defects whatsoever. There is no evidence the vehicle was ever brought in for any service or repair other than one than the one recall visit. Thus, defendant is entitled to judgment as to this claim.

In summary, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

3. CU0001307 Rick Ewald vs. Gary Liardon, et al.

The demurrer is continued on the court’s own motion to June 27, 2025, at 10:00 am, in Dept. 6, to be heard after the pending motion to quash.

4. CU0001661 Deborah Wagner vs. George McKnight, et al
Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to lift the bankruptcy stay is granted. Prior to the stay being ordered, defendants County of Nevada and Walsh filed a demurrer which has been fully briefed. Such demurrer, however, was dropped due to the stay. Thus, on the court’s motion, defendants County and Walsh’s demurrer filed on January 3, 2025, is hereby set for hearing on July 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. A tentative ruling shall issue the court day prior.

5. CU0001292 Carrie Criss-Harvey vs. Pacific Life Insurance Company

Defendant’s motion for a protective order relating to the deposition of counsel Horrobin is granted.

"Depositions of opposing counsel are presumptively improper, severely restricted, and require 'extremely' good cause – a high standard." Carehouse Convalescent Hospital (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1558, 1562, citing Spectra–Physics, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 198 Cal. App. 3d 1487, 1493. “There are strong policy considerations against deposing an opposing counsel.”
Ibid. Consistent with these public policy concerns, “[t]he circumstances under which opposing counsel may be deposed are limited to those where (1) no other means exist to obtain the information than to depose opposing counsel; (2) the information sought is relevant and not privileged; (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case.” Estate of Ruchti, 12 Cal. App. 4th 1593, 1600 (1993); see Spectra-Physics, Inc, 198 Cal. App.3d at 1496; Carehouse Convalescent Hospital, 143 Cal.App.4th at 1563.

“The attorney-client privilege, set forth at Evidence Code section 954, confers a privilege on the client ‘to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer....’ The privilege ‘has been a hallmark of Anglo-American jurisprudence for almost 400 years.’ Its fundamental purpose ‘is to safeguard the confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and open discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding individual legal matters. ....’ ”

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732 (citations omitted). “The [attorney-client] privilege protects … communications between a business entity and its in-house counsel acting in a legal capacity.” Bank of America, N.A. v. Superior Court (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099. “The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply.” Costco, 47 Cal.4th at 733 (citations omitted).

Where privilege issues arise in connection with house-attorneys for insurers, a trial court must make a determination as to dominant purpose of the relationship between the insurer and its attorneys.

The proper procedure [is] for the trial court first to determine the dominant purpose of the relationship between the insurance company and its in-house attorneys, i.e., was it one of attorney-client or one of claims adjuster-insurance corporation …. The corporation, having the burden of establishing the preliminary fact that the communications were made during the course of an attorney-client relationship [is] free to request an in camera review of the communications to aid the trial court in making that determination, but the trial court c[an] not order disclosure of the information over the corporation's objection. If the trial court determine[s] the communications were made during the course of an attorney-client relationship, the communications, including any reports of factual material, would be privileged, even though the factual material might be discoverable by some other means. If the trial court instead conclude[s] that the dominant purpose of the relationship was not that of attorney and client, the communications would not be subject to the attorney-client privilege and therefore would be generally discoverable.

Costco, 47 Cal.4th at 739–740.

Here, having considered the record as a whole (excluding the declaration submitted by defendant as part of its reply[i]), the court finds and concludes that extremely good cause has not been established for the deposition of counsel Horrobin. Defendant has made a prima facie claim of privilege, i.e,, various lay employees of Pacific Life Insurance Company engaged in communication with counsel Horrobin for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice during the course of an attorney-client relationship. Those communication are presumed to have been made in confidence. The opponent of the claim of privilege, plaintiff, had the burden of proof to establish the communications were not confidential or that the privilege did not apply. Plaintiff has failed to prove that the communications were not confidential, that defendant waived the privilege, or any other reason why the privilege should not apply. The court need not address the other elements of the extreme good cause standard. A protective order is warranted.

The court recognizes its authority to impose monetary sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel. This issue is a close call. That said, the court concludes that plaintiff’s counsel acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion given the arguments raised in opposition and declines to impose monetary sanctions.

[i] The court sustains plaintiff’s objection to the Farias declaration.

5-16-25 Civil TRs

CU0000861 Patrick H. Dwyer vs. Dr. Andrea L. Harris et al
Defendants’ motion to stay action and vacate trial and related dates is granted.

2. CU0001024 Walter Nicholas, et al vs. FCA US, LLC

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Standard of Review

Objections to Evidence

Defendant’s objection to plaintiffs’ declaration based on the failure to sign the declaration is sustained. The court need not address the other objections.

Request for Continuance

Factual Background

First Cause of Action-Civil Code section 1793.2(d)

Second Cause of Action-Civil Code section 1793.2(b)

Third Cause of Action-Civil Code Section 1793.2(a)(3)

Fourth Cause of Action-Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Fifth Cause of Action-Fraudulent Concealment

In summary, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

3. CU0001307 Rick Ewald vs. Gary Liardon, et al.

The demurrer is continued on the court’s own motion to June 27, 2025, at 10:00 am, in Dept. 6, to be heard after the pending motion to quash.

5. CU0001292 Carrie Criss-Harvey vs. Pacific Life Insurance Company

Defendant’s motion for a protective order relating to the deposition of counsel Horrobin is granted.

Where privilege issues arise in connection with house-attorneys for insurers, a trial court must make a determination as to dominant purpose of the relationship between the insurer and its attorneys.

Costco, 47 Cal.4th at 739–740.

[i] The court sustains plaintiff’s objection to the Farias declaration.

5-16-25 Civil TRs

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

Defendants’ motion to stay action and vacate trial and related dates is granted.

“Comity is based on the belief ‘that the laws of a state have no force, proprio vigore, beyond its territorial limits, but the laws of one state are frequently permitted by the courtesy of another to operate in the latter for the promotion of justice, where neither that state nor its citizens will suffer any inconvenience from the application of the foreign law. This courtesy, or comity, is established, not only from motives of respect for the laws and institutions of the foreign countries, but from considerations of mutual utility and advantage. ’ ” Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 697, 707, quoting Estate of Lund (1945) 26 Cal.2d 472, 489 (quotations omitted).
In the present case, the Vermont’s Rehabilitation Order provides, in pertinent part, “In order to maintain the status quo while the Rehabilitator assesses CARE RRG’s ability to meet its obligations in the normal course of business and to avoid prejudice to insureds resulting from the suspension of the Company’s payment of loss and defense obligations, the Court would, to the extent of its jurisdiction and the comity afforded its order, enjoin for ninety days the continuation or initiation of litigation against CARE RRG policyholders respecting events assertedly covered under its policies of insurance or against CARE RRG, its officers, directors, managers, employees or agents.”

2. CU0001024 Walter Nicholas, et al vs. FCA US, LLC

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Standard of Review

Objections to Evidence

Defendant’s objection to plaintiffs’ declaration based on the failure to sign the declaration is sustained. The court need not address the other objections.

Request for Continuance

Factual Background

First Cause of Action-Civil Code section 1793.2(d)

Second Cause of Action-Civil Code section 1793.2(b)

Third Cause of Action-Civil Code Section 1793.2(a)(3)

Civil Code Section 1793.2(a)(3), provides, in pertinent part, that “Every manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty shall … [m]ake available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.” (Italics added).
Here, defendant presented evidence that it found no records indicating that any repairs were conducted on the vehicle and that there was solely one visit by plaintiffs for a warranty claim to reprogram the power control module. See UMF 4-6 (and supporting evidence). There is no evidence of a service visit to “effect repairs” during the express warranty period. Plaintiffs’ third cause of action fails as a matter of law.

Fourth Cause of Action-Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Fifth Cause of Action-Fraudulent Concealment

In summary, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

3. CU0001307 Rick Ewald vs. Gary Liardon, et al.

The demurrer is continued on the court’s own motion to June 27, 2025, at 10:00 am, in Dept. 6, to be heard after the pending motion to quash.

5. CU0001292 Carrie Criss-Harvey vs. Pacific Life Insurance Company

Defendant’s motion for a protective order relating to the deposition of counsel Horrobin is granted.

Where privilege issues arise in connection with house-attorneys for insurers, a trial court must make a determination as to dominant purpose of the relationship between the insurer and its attorneys.

Costco, 47 Cal.4th at 739–740.

[i] The court sustains plaintiff’s objection to the Farias declaration.

May 9, 2025 Civil Tentative Rulings

1. CL0002552 The CBM Group Inc. vs. S.B.

Defendant’s March 26, 2025, demurrer is denied without prejudice.    Defendant, the moving party, has failed to file proof that the motion has been served on plaintiff.  See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300; Code Civ. Proc. § 1005. 

2. CU0000090 Matthew Palleschi, et al. v. Daniel Fraiman Construction, Inc., et al.

Raudel’s Tile and Granite’s March 27, 2025, motion for leave to file a permissive cross-complaint against Daniel Fraiman Construction, Inc. is granted. The cross-complaint shall be filed and served by no later than May 16, 2025. Any responsive pleading shall be filed in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. CU0000634 Carla Marie Vieira vs. California Dept. of Transportation, et al.

Defendant Estate of Judith Knolle’s March 12, 2025, motion for sanctions against plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 is denied without prejudice.

The applicable principles governing section 128.7 are set forth in Kumar v. Ramsey (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1110:

Section 128.7 applies only in limited circumstances. It “authorizes trial courts to impose sanctions to check abuses in the filing of pleadings, petitions, written notices of motions or similar papers.” Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 514. Under that authority, trial courts may issue sanctions, including monetary and terminating sanctions, against a party for filing a complaint that is legally or factually frivolous. Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(b)-(d); Ponce v. Wells Fargo Bank (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 253, 263-264. “A claim is factually frivolous if it is ‘not well grounded in fact’ and is legally frivolous if it is ‘not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.’ [Citation.] In either case, to obtain sanctions, the moving party must show the party's conduct in asserting the claim was objectively unreasonable. [Citation.] A claim is objectively unreasonable if ‘any reasonable attorney would agree that [it] is totally and completely without merit.’ [Citations.]” Bucur v. Ahmad (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 175, 189.

“A court has broad discretion to impose sanctions if the moving party satisfies the elements of the sanctions statute.” Peake v. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 441 (Peake). … Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 should be utilized only in “the rare and exceptional case where the action is clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable or without legal foundation, or brought for an improper purpose.” Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Co. (9th Cir. 1988) 859 F.2d 1336, 1344. “Because our adversary system requires that attorneys and litigants be provided substantial breathing room to develop and assert factual and legal arguments, [section 128.7] sanctions should not be routinely or easily awarded even for a claim that is arguably frivolous” Peake, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 448, and instead “should be ‘made with restraint.’ ” Peake, at p. 448. Indeed, even if a plaintiff could not successfully defend against either demurrer or summary judgment, that alone is insufficient to support the sanction of dismissal. Ibid.

Id. at 1120–1121 (parentheses and parallel citations omitted).

To avoid sanctions under section 128.7, “the issue is not merely whether the party would prevail on the underlying factual or legal argument,” but rather whether any reasonable attorney would agree that the claim is totally and completely without merit. Peake, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 448. Hence, the evidentiary burden to escape sanctions under section 128.7 is light. [The opposing party] must make a sufficient evidentiary showing to demonstrate that he made a reasonable inquiry into the facts and entertained a good faith belief in the merits of the claim. [The opposing party] need not amass even enough evidence to create a triable issue of fact as would be required if [the moving party] had brought a motion for summary judgment, or allege a valid cause of action, as required to overcome a demurrer.

Id. at 1120–1126 (parentheses and parallel citations omitted).

At bar, it is premature at this stage to conclude that the instant claim by plaintiff Vieira against the Estate of Judith Knolle is factually frivolous and premature to consider whether sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable period of time to conduct and complete discovery. Plaintiff shall be prepared to provide the court and counsel with her discovery plan as to the Estate of Knolle and the time estimate necessary to complete the same. The parties shall meet and confer once all discovery is completed regarding plaintiff’s intentions with respect to a claim against the Estate of Knolle.

4. CU0000991 Christopher Bay Stormbringer v. Turning Point

Defendant Turning Point Community Programs’ March 28, 2025, unopposed demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. The March 28, 2025, motion to strike is denied as moot.

Demurrer

A complaint for damages or relief must contain a concise statement of the facts constituting the cause of action. See Code Civ. Proc. § 430. The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object by demurrer if the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or if the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous or unintelligible. See Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e) and (f).

Plaintiff’s complaint as a whole is uncertain because it does not precisely allege what defendant did wrongfully and identify a date upon which the injury or harm occurred.

The complaint also fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for negligence. See, e.g., Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917 (required negligence elements).

The complaint further fails to allege a cause of action for intentional tort. Plaintiff does not specify the nature of the intentional tort at issue or any facts regarding intentional misconduct by defendant in support thereof.

“Where the complaint is defective, ‘[i]n the furtherance of justice great liberality should be exercised in permitting a plaintiff to amend his complaint, and it ordinarily constitutes an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.’ ” Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 970–971 (citation omitted). However, “[t]he plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that “ ‘ there is a reasonable possibility the plaintiff could cure the defect with an amendment.’ ” Jo Redland Trust, U.A.D. 4-6-05 v. CIT Bank, N.A. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 142, 162; see Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126(same). In this case, there has been no showing by plaintiff that he wishes to amend the complaint or why he believes there is a reasonable possibility of cure. On this record, leave to amend is denied.

Motion to Strike

The court need not address this motion in light of the demurrer disposition.

5. CU0001309 Quinn Coburn vs. Daniel Marsh

On March 21, 2025, the court directed the parties to show cause why the default, default judgment, and other documents should not be set aside based on potential inadequate service of process. The court now vacates the default, default judgment, abstract of judgment and writs of execution.

Before a court can enter a valid personal judgment, it must have both jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person. Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., Ltd. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 125, 138. Service of process on a party is the means by which a court with subject matter jurisdiction asserts its jurisdiction over the party and notifies the party of the action. Id. at p. 139.

“[F]ormal service of process performs two important functions. From the court's perspective, service of process asserts jurisdiction over the person.” Rockefeller, 9 Cal.5th at p. 139. From a defendant's perspective, service of process provides notice of the pending action and gives him or her an opportunity to present a defense. Ibid. Stated another way, “[s]ervice of process ... protects a defendant's due process right to defend against an action by providing constitutionally adequate notice of the court proceeding.” Ibid.

Accordingly, “compliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. Thus, a default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.” Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444 (citation omitted).

The present matter involves substitute service, a type of constructive service described in Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, subdivision (b):

If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served ..., a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household ..., at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.

At bar, the court has reviewed the parties’ submissions as well as the relevant April 14, 2024, proof of service. In short, plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements for effective substitute service. First and most importantly, there is no evidence that a copy of the summons and complaint was sent by mail. Second, while there is evidence that the summons and complaint was left with the spouse of defendant, there is no evidence as to her age.

Strict compliance is required by law. Service was ineffective. The June 5, 2024 default, June 6, 2024 default judgment, September 12, 2024 and September 23, 2024 abstracts of judgment and December 19, 2024 writs of execution are vacated. A case management conference is set for July 7. 2025 at 09:00 in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall diligently serve the summons and complaint as required by law.

6. CU0001851 Paul Edward Gilbert v Clear Recon Corp, et al.

No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, non-party Court Executive Officer’s April 30, 2025, motion to quash subpoena/subpoena duces tecum is continued until May 23, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. This judicial officer, the Presiding Judge for the Court, shall recuse himself given that the pending motion has been filed by the Court’s Executive Officer and relates to a subpoena directed at the Clerk of the Court/Court Executive Officer.

7. CU20-084651 Julian Backrak, et al. vs. Grass Valley Mob. Home Park, LLC, et al.

Plaintiffs' motion to appoint successors-in-interest to deceased plaintiffs, and substitute successors-in-interest therefor is granted with conditions. The record demonstrates that Zoeie Brudjar, Walter Reed Meek, Georgine Jamison, Pamela Scott, Brennan Porteur, and Trista Stanley are decedents' successors-in-interest as defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 377.11 and have an absolute right to be substituted for decedents under section 377.31. See, e.g., Pepper v. Sup. Ct. (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 252, 260-261. The parties shall meet and confer regarding timely completion of remaining discovery. To the extent that any party wishes to shorten time for any discovery response or action, they must file an appropriate noticed motion.

8. SC0000482 Dan Rooney v. Setare Tree

Defendant’s unopposed, March 18, 2025, motion to vacate the judgment is granted. If a defendant was not properly served as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 116.330 or 116.340 and did not appear at the hearing in the small claims court, the defendant may file a motion to vacate the judgment. See Code Civ. Proc. §116.740(a). Here, defendant has demonstrated good cause to believe they were not properly served. The judgment is vacated and the matter is reset for trial on July 14, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. 5. The clerk shall serve a copy of the minutes and notice of trial on all parties.

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

Defendants’ November 12, 2024, motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s January 31, 2025, request for judicial notice is granted in its entirety. Exhibits D through M are court documents that are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code section 452(d), which authorizes judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States and of any state in the United States.” The court notes, however, none of the documents or their substance needed to be considered as part of the decision below.

Standard of Review

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

Timeliness of Creditor Claim and Lawsuit

Defendants Nicole Medina (individually and as personal representative of the Estate of David Freeman) and Mitchell Freeman seek summary judgment. In short, they argue that the lawsuit is time-barred because plaintiffs failed to timely file their creditor claim as required by Probate Code section 9100 and failed to timely file their lawsuit as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 3662. The court agrees.

“The Legislature enacted a comprehensive scheme designed to expedite the administration of estates while providing beneficiaries and administrators some protection from unknown creditor claims.” Dobler v. Arluk Medical Center Industrial Group, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 530, 535.

Probate Code section 9100 provides that a creditor must file a claim in the probate estate proceedings within either four months after the court appoints a general personal representative, or within 60 days after notice of administration is given to the creditor, whichever is later.[i] The short time limitation in section 9100 for filing claims is designed to expedite the distribution of estate assets by requiring creditors to promptly assert their claims against a decedent.

Ibid.

“[P]robate statutes generally require the filing of claims within a short time known as the nonclaim period. The purpose of the requirement is to give the representative an opportunity to ascertain speedily the obligations against the estate and the method of payment.... [¶] ... [¶] ... Timely presentation is necessary before the representative is obligated or entitled to pay, and failure in this regard is an absolute bar to enforcement of the claim.” Wilkison v. Wiederkehr (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 822, 834 (citation omitted); see Probate Code §9002 (b).

Probate Code “[s]ection 9103 allows creditors, who were not given proper notice and who were not aware of the estate administration, leave to file a late claim under specified conditions.” Interinsurance Exchange v. Narula (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1146.

Once a creditor obtains knowledge of estate administration, it must take action to preserve its rights by either filing a claim or petition for leave to file a claim:

As the Law Revision Commission comment to the 1990 amendment to [Probate Code] section 9392 indicates, “[a] creditor who has knowledge of estate administration must file a claim or, if the claim filing period has expired, must petition for leave to file a late claim. See Section 9100 (time for filing claims) and 9103 (late claims). This rule applies whether the creditor's knowledge is acquired through notification under Section 9050 (notice required), by virtue of publication under Section 8120 (publication required), or otherwise.” [Citation].

What these statutes do not provide … is protection for the neglectful creditor who, along with his attorney, had actual knowledge of the administration of an estate within time to protect his rights but fails to file a timely claim, or petition to file a late claim, or avail himself of one of the other statutory remedies.

Venturi v. Taylor (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 16, 26 (italics supplied) (Appellant with “actual knowledge of the pendency of the estate proceeding” … “was required to file a petition for leave to file a late claim and did not do so. His claim, filed after expiration of the four-month claims period was untimely.”)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2^{^[ii]} provides for an outside time limit of one year for filing any type of claim against a decedent.” Dobler, 89 Cal.App.4th at 535. “This uniform one-year statute of limitations applies to actions on all claims against the decedent which survive the decedent's death.” Ibid. Among other things, “the late-claim remedy is barred if the Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2 one-year limitations period has expired.” Interinsurance Exchange, 33 Cal.App.4th at 1146; see Farb v. Superior Court (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 678, 684–685 (“The [California Law Revision] commission recommended that, ‘notwithstanding the four-month claim filing requirement, a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor who does not have actual knowledge of the administration of the estate during the four-month claim period should be permitted to petition for leave to file a late claim.... [¶] Although known or reasonably ascertainable creditors who have no knowledge of administration would be given remedies beyond the four month claim period, these remedies must be exercised within one year after the decedent's death.’ ”)

The one-year limitations period, however, can be tolled. See Dobler, 89 Cal.App.4th at 535. Among other things, the limitation is tolled by “the timely filing of a creditor claim…. Thus, if a claim is timely filed in the probate proceedings, it remains timely filed even though the representative or court acts on a claim by allowing, approving or rejecting the claim outside the limitations period.” Dobler, 89 Cal.App.4th at 535 and fn. 11, citing Probate Code § 9102. In addition, “[t]he filing of a claim or a petition under Section 9103 to file a claim tolls the statute of limitations otherwise applicable to the claim until allowance, approval, or rejection.” Prob. Code § 9352.^{^[iii]}

At bar, the following facts are undisputed: David Freeman died on September 7, 2021. His will was admitted to probate on December 17, 2021 and letters testamentary were issued to personal representative Medina the same date in Case No. P21-16971 (Estate of David Freeman). The four-month statutory period for filing claims expired on April 17, 2022. Notice of administration was not provided to plaintiff by the personal representative. Plaintiff eCapital Asset Based Lending Corp. did not file its creditor claim against the estate of David Freeman until July 15, 2022 (almost three months later). Plaintiff did not seek leave of court to file this claim.^{^[iv]} While plaintiff cannot recall when it became aware of the administration of the estate, it was aware of the administration at least by July 15, 2022. Plaintiff did not make a demand for payment from the Estate of David Freeman at any time prior to the filing of their July 15, 2022, creditor claim. Defendant personal representative rejected the claim on October 20, 2022. The present creditor action was filed by plaintiff on January 17, 2023.

Based thereon, the court concludes as follows: Plaintiff did not file a timely claim in the probate proceedings pursuant to Probate Code section 9100(a). Specifically, plaintiff’s claim was not filed within four months after the date letters were first issued to the general personal representative pursuant to section 9100(a)(1). Section 9100(a)(2) was inapplicable because notice of administration was not mailed or personally delivered to the creditor. Plaintiff had knowledge of the administration at least as of July 15, 2022. Plaintiff did not seek leave to file its July 2022 late claim under Probate Code section 9103. Under Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2, the statute of limitations for filing a claim was one year after David Freeman passed away, i.e., September 7, 2022. The present creditor action was filed in January, 2023, well beyond the one-year limitations period. Lastly, because plaintiff’s claim was not timely filed under the requirements of Probate Code section 9100 or with leave of the court under Probate Code section 9103, there is no tolling of the limitations period under Probate Code sections 9102 and 9352(a).

Judicial Estoppel

Plaintiff argues that the defendants are judicially estopped from raising a shorter statute of limitations on summary judgment. The court disagrees.

The doctrine of judicial estoppel has a “limited purpose: to protect the integrity of the judicial process, primarily by precluding a party from taking inconsistent positions that pose a risk of inconsistent court determinations.” Jogani v. Jogani (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 158, 188. To establish judicial estoppel, the moving party must prove “(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.” Jackson v. Cty. of L.A. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 171, 183. “[E]ach case must be decided on its own facts and in light of equitable considerations.” Jogani, 141 Cal. App. 4th at 181.

Here, plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of proof, at the very least, with respect to the second element. In short, defendant, personal representative Medina filed an October 20, 2022, accounting in Case No. P21-16971 and plaintiff filed a December 19, 2022 objection thereto. In Medina’s January 30, 2023, reply, defendant, in fact, stated that “the deadline for … eCapital … to file a lawsuit against the Estate of David Freeman on their rejected creditor claim was January 20, 2023,” a position contrary to her second position herein that the deadline was September 7, 2022. However, the court records in Case P21-16971 reflect that the hearing regarding the accounting, originally set for August 4, 2023, see Feb. 10, 2023 minutes, was advanced to June 9, 2023. See Mar. 8, 2023 Order. Thereafter, according to records in Case No. CU0000512 (the consolidated case), the June 9, 2023, hearing was vacated. See June 2, 2023 Stipulation and Order. In short, the court has not adjudicated the accounting. As such, plaintiffs cannot establish that defendants were successful in asserting the first position as to the lawsuit-filing deadline.^{^[v]}

Issue Preclusion

Plaintiff contends that defendants should be precluded from raising “the statute of limitation

Argument under principles of issue preclusion,” noting that “the Court rejected their statute of limitations argument when it overruled Defendants’ demurrer in August 2023.” The court does not agree.

“Issue preclusion by collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings.” Bullock v. City of Antioch, (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 407, 415 (citations and quotations omitted). “The doctrine rests upon the ground that the party to be affected … has litigated, or had an opportunity to litigate the same matter in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it again to the harassment and vexation of his opponent.” Ibid. (quotations and citations omitted, italics added). “The threshold requirements for issue preclusion to apply are: (1) the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation is identical to that decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the issue was necessarily decided in the former proceeding; (4) the decision in the former proceeding is final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom preclusion is sought is the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding.” Id. at 415-16 (italics added). Doe WHBE 3 v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1135, 1164, citing Lennane v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1185.

At bar, issue preclusion does not apply because “the first ruling” regarding the demurrer “was not in a former action.” Doe WHBE 3, 102 Cal.App.5th at 1164.

This is how Witkin puts it: “(2) Earlier Ruling in Same Case Cannot Be Preclusive. The preclusion doctrines give conclusive effect to a former judgment only when the former judgment was in a different action; an earlier ruling in the same action cannot be preclusive, although it may be ‘law of the case’ if an appellate court has determined the issue. [Citations.]” 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (6th ed. 2024) Judgment, § 362.

Doe WHBE 3, 102 Cal.App.5th at 1164 (parentheses omitted, italics added).^{^[vi]}

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

[i] Probate Code section 9100(a) provides:

[A] creditor shall file a claim before expiration of the later of the following times: (1) Four months after the date letters are first issued to a general personal representative. (2) Sixty days after the date notice of administration is mailed or personally delivered to the creditor. …

[ii] Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2 provides, in pertinent part: “If a person against whom an action may be brought on a liability of the person, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, and whether accrued or not accrued, dies before the expiration of the applicable limitations period, and the cause of action survives, an action may be commenced within one year after the date of death, and the limitations period that would have been applicable does not apply.” See Dobler, 89 Cal.App.4th at 535.

[iii] Estate of Holdaway (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1049, 1055-56 is distinguishable from the instant case. Holdaway involved a situation where a creditor timely filed a petition for probate and a creditor’s claim just within the one- year limitations period; the question was whether that timely filed petition and claim were tolled until rejection. Holdaway did not address a situation, such as the one here, where a petition for probate had already been filed by one party and a creditor then filed its claim.

[iv] There was no specific evidence presented by the parties as to whether petitioner sought leave to file its July 2022 claim. “[T]he court may take judicial notice on its own volition.” Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752, citing Evid. Code § 455(a); Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374. Here, the court takes judicial notice of its own records in Case No. P21-16971 pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d). These records reveal that no petition was filed by plaintiff under Probate Code section 9103 for leave to file a late claim.

[v] Plaintiff did establish elements one, two and four. Plaintiff has taken two positions in judicial proceedings that are totally inconsistent. The court need not address element five.

[vi] In addition, the issues in the demurrer and summary judgment are not identical.

May 2, 2025 Civil Tentative Rulings (Amended)

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

Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff’s January 22, 2025 motion for sanctions against defendants Fetty, Capaldo and Shroyer lacks merit and is denied.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff’s January 22, 2025 motion for a preliminary injunction against Lake Life Resorts LLC, et al. is denied. Lake Life Resorts, LLC is not currently a party in this action according to the operative November 20, 2023 amended complaint. In addition, there has been no proof that Lake Life Resorts, LLC has been served with the instant motion.

Motion to File Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s January 23, 2025 motion to file a second amended complaint is granted. “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Code of Civil Procedure § 473(a)(1). “This statutory provision giving the courts the power to permit amendments in furtherance of justice has received a very liberal interpretation by the courts of this state. ” See Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760; see also Sanai v. Saltz (2009) 170 CA4th 746, 769-770, 88 CR3d 673, 691 (error to condition leave to amend on plaintiff “produc[ing] admissible evidence” substantiating amended complaint). “[E]ven if the proposed [amendment] is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings. ’ ” Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.

At bar, plaintiff argues that Lake Life Resorts, LLC is an appropriate defendant which engaged in purported wrongful conduct. Plaintiff has lodged a second amended complaint that solely references this new defendant in the caption. Even though plaintiff’s proposed amendment is novel, given the liberality with respect to amendment of pleadings, the court will permit filing of the same. Plaintiff must separately file the second amended complaint within 10 days and must then properly serve the same on all defendants and the newly added defendant.

Motion for Specific Performance

Plaintiff’s March 6, 2025 motion for specific performance lacks merit and is denied.

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

Plaintiff eCapital Asset Based Lending Corporation’s March 7, 2025 unopposed motion to compel production of documents is granted. Responsive documents shall be produced, without objections, within 7 days of service of the order after hearing.

Plaintiff eCapital Asset Based Lending Corporation’s March 7, 2025 unopposed motion for additional sanctions for defendants Medina and Freeman’s disobedience of prior discovery orders is granted in part. The court imposes additional sanctions of $4,663.75 (50% of the previous sanctions) and awards fees and costs as requested of $1,787.50. Total sanctions in the amount of $15,778.75 shall be paid within 14 days of service of the order after hearing.

On the court’s motion, ruling regarding defendants’ November 12, 2024 motion for summary judgment set for May 23, 2025, is vacated. The motion is now set for argument on May 9, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. A modified tentative ruling will issue the Thursday prior thereto.

3. CU0000634 Carla Marie Vieira vs. California Dept. of Transportation, et al.

On the court’s motion, defendant Estate of Judith Knolle’s March 12, 2025 motion for sanctions against plaintiff under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 is continued until May 9, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The previously posted tentative ruling, posted on May 1, 2025 at approximately noon, is withdrawn.

4. CU0001243 Alexis Alberson vs. Elizabeth Dankworth, et al.

Defendants’ March 17, 2025 motion to expunge lis pendens is granted.

A motion to expunge may be brought at any time after the lis pendens has been recorded. See Code Civ. Proc. §405.30. Where the basis of the motion is that the party recording the lis pendens does not assert a claim of probably validity, the party who recorded the lis pendens has the burden of proof. Ibid. The lis pendens must be expunged if the claimant is unable to establish the "probable validity" of the real property claim. See Code Civil Proc. §405.32. Under this standard, the court examines the merits of the underlying action and applies an objective test. See Code Civ. Proc. §§405.3, 405.32; Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1015; Mix v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 987, 993-994. A claim has probable validity if "it is more likely than not that the claimant will obtain a judgment against the defendant on the claim." Code Civ. Proc. §405.3. This standard must be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence. See Code Civ. Proc. §405.32.

At bar, plaintiff has failed to establish that her claim for specific performance based on breach of contract has probable validity.

“A foreign limited liability company may apply for a certificate of registration to transact business in [California] by delivering an application to the Secretary of State….” Corp. Code § 17708.02. A contract made by a foreign entity that is not qualified to do business in California and that has not filed tax returns is voidable at the election of a party to the contract other than the foreign entity/taxpayer. See Rev. & Tax Code §23304.1 (b) (“If a foreign taxpayer that neither is qualified to do business nor has an account number from the Franchise Tax Board, fails to file a tax return required under this part, any contract made in this state by that taxpayer during the applicable period specified in subdivision (c) shall, subject to Section 23304.5, be voidable at the request of any party to the contract other than the taxpayer.”). “[Revenue and Taxation Code] section 23101 define[s] ‘doing business’ as “actively engaging in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit.” See Swart Enterprises, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 497, 503–504 and n. 2 (noting that “For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011, a taxpayer is also “doing business” in California if the taxpayer is organized or commercially domiciled in California, or a taxpayer's California sales, property, or payroll exceed the amounts applicable under subdivision (b)(1) of section 23101.”).

In the present case, at the time of formation of the contract at issue and continuing through February 22, 2024, Oak Hill Homes, a Wyoming limited liability company, was actively engaging in transactions for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit in California. At that time, Oak Hill Homes was not authorized to conduct business in California. (It apparently became authorized on or about February 23, 2024.) “[Defendants] argue[] it is reasonable to infer noncompliance [with this state’s franchise tax requirements] due to [plaintiff’s] failure to qualify to transact intrastate business in California prior to [February 23, 2024]. Until then it had no corporate identification number and presumably could not have paid taxes or filed a return without an identification number.” White Dragon Productions, Inc. v. Performance Guarantees, Inc. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 163, 171–172. “[T]he inference is reasonable.” Ibid. Moreover, [plaintiff] has n[ot] refuted the allegation of its past tax-delinquent status.” Ibid. Accordingly, the agreement at issue, on this record, is voidable pursuant to Revenue and Tax Code section 23304.1(b).

Defendants’ motion to expunge lis pendens is granted.

Defendants are deemed the prevailing parties for purposes of attorney’s fees and costs. See Code of Civil Procedure § 405.38. Any request for the same shall be made in a separate noticed motion.

5. CU0001842 Charles Eugene Murdock vs. Jodi Michelle Andrews

Defendant Jodi Andrew’s March 14, 2025 motion to strike is denied. The first amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to support a potential award of punitive damages. See, e.g., Taylor v. Superior Ct. (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 890, 897 (punitive damages for conscious disregard of safety of others); Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 158 (same); see First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 14, 15.

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

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

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

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

June 6, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

P14-15589 In the Matter of JOHANNA PEASE
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report for biennial review. The court continues this matter for receipt of the report to August 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
The sixth account and report of conservators, petitioner for approval of fund transfers, and petition for allowance of attorney compensation is granted as prayed.
P14-15598 In the Matter of KEVIN TAYLOR WESTPHALEN
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report for biennial review. The court continues this matter for receipt of the report to August 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
P16-15924 In the Matter of KYLE M. LYNCH
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report for biennial review. The court continues this matter for receipt of the report to August 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
P18-16328 In the Matter of CODY PORTERFIELD
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report for biennial review. The court continues this matter for receipt of the report to August 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
P20-16664 In the Matter of SANDRA ROBINSON
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report for biennial review. The court continues this matter for receipt of the report to August 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
P22-17034 In the Matter of DIANNA LYNN JEFFREY
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report for biennial review. The court continues this matter for receipt of the report to August 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
PR0000426 In the Matter of RENEE S. MARSHALL
No appearances are required. The conservatorship of the person and estate shall continue. The conservatorship still appears to be warranted. The conservator is acting in the best interests of the conservatee regarding the conservatee's placement and quality of care, including physical and mental treatment and finances. The next biennial review is set for March 12, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court investigation fee for this biennial review is due forthwith.
The court grants conservator’s request for waiver of accountings pursuant to Probate Code section 2628. Further accountings are not required absent further order of the court pursuant to section 2628(b) or otherwise.
PR0000430 In the Matter of ISAIAH SCHNEIDER
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report for biennial review. The court continues this matter for receipt of the report to August 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
PR0000597 In the Matter of the JOSHUA CAMBERLAN SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST #2
No appearances are required.

The 10 April 2024 unopposed petition for confirmation of appointment of trustee, for determination of bond, to determine construction of trust and to whom property shall pass, and for instructions, is granted as follows:

Confirmation of Trustee

In the instant case, Barry Richards and Paige Millard, the then-serving limited conservators for Joshua Camberlan, sought to remove CAPS OF SANTA BARBARA (“CAPS”) as trustee, and took preliminary action to do so; however, CAPS ultimately resigned on December 18, 2023. Under these circumstances, Section 4.2 of the trust mandated the procedure for selection of a successor: “a majority of the current income Beneficiaries (or their guardians, if minors) of any trusts created hereunder shall elect one or more Successor Trustees.”

As of January 13, 2025, a majority of the then-current income beneficiaries, namely: conservatee Joshua Camberlan (through his conservators), CAPS (the PROVIDER OF EXPERT ADVICE) and MOMENTUM/WORK INC. (the DAY HABILITATION SERVICES PROVIDER), have either appointed Matthew Quentmeyer to serve as successor trustee or confirmed, ratified and consented to the same. Matthew Quentmeyer is confirmed to be the valid and currently serving successor trustee pursuant to Section 4.2 of the trust. In the alterative, he is appointed as trustee pursuant to the court’s discretionary authority under Probate Code section 15660.

Bond

Pursuant to Probate Code section 15602(c), the court sets bond at $5,185,000.00. Successor trustee shall secure a bond and file proof of the same with the court.

Construction of Charitable Service Provider Distribution Provision

Upon the death of the conservatee, the trust requires the trustee to distribute fifty percent (50%) of the remaining balance of the trust to the Nature Conservancy and “fifty percent (50%) to local charitable service providers that have been of assistance to [the conservatee] during his lifetime….” Trust, Article 3, ¶ m. The “portion of the Trust representing the DISTRIBUTION TO LOCAL SERVICE AGENCIES shall be allocated as follows[:]”

80% of this share is to be distributed among JOSHUA’S SUPPORTED LIVING SERVICES PROVIDERS serving from 2007 through the term of the Trust. Each year of incumbency will count as a Credit Year and the distribution to each SUPPORTED LIVING SERVICES PROVIDER will be based on its proportion of the sum of Credit Years.

15% of this share is to be distributed among JOSHUA’S DAY HABILITATION SERVICES PROVIDERS serving from 2007 through the term of the Trust. Each year of incumbency will count as a Credit Year and the distribution to each DAY HABILITATION SERVICES PROVIDER will be based on its proportion of the sum of Credit Years.

5% of this share is to be distributed among PROVIDERS OF EXPERT ADVICE TO THE TRUSTEE serving from 2007 through the term of the Trust.

Each year of incumbency will count as a Credit Year and the distribution to each PROVIDER OF EXPERT ADVICE TO THE TRUSTEE will be based on its proportion of the sum of Credit Years.

Ibid.

The trust requires “service providers” to have 501(c)3 tax status (as a not-for-profit organization) to “be designated as an incumbent provider,” to be included on the trust’s “Schedule of Planned Distributions,” and ultimately to receive distributions. See ibid. Entities which lack such status do not qualify as local service agency beneficiaries under the trust. NURSECORE and/or NURSECORE OF SANTA BARBARA are ineligible to meet the designation of incumbent service provider and are not local service agency beneficiaries. BRIGHTSTAR and/or BRIGHTSTAR OF SANTA BARBARA are similarly ineligible to meet the designation of incumbent service provider and are not local service agency beneficiaries. The rights and interests of NURSECORE and/or NURSECORE OF SANTA BARBARA and BRIGHTSTAR and/or BRIGHTSTAR OF SANTA BARBARA in the trust terminate based on these findings of ineligibility. The court need not interpret and construct the term “local” in light of these findings.

With respect to the SUPPORTED LIVING SERVICES PROVIDERS, DEVEREUX-CALIFORNIA was the only designated incumbent service provider and had credit years from 2007–2016. There was no other incumbent provider with earned credit years; hence the pro-rata provision is inapplicable. This entity is entitled to the full 80% share of the 50% distribution to local service agencies.

With respect to the DAY HABILITATION SERVICES PROVIDERS, MOMENTUM/WORK, INC. formerly UCP/WORK, INC. was the only designated incumbent service provider from 2007–2025. There was no other incumbent provider with earned credit years; hence the pro-rata provision is inapplicable. This entity is entitled to the full 15% share of the 50% distribution to local service agencies.

With respect to the PROVIDERS OF EXPERT ADVICE TO THE TRUSTEE, CAPS was the designated incumbent service provider for 2007–2023. There was no other incumbent provider with earned credit years; hence the pro-rata provision is inapplicable. This entity is entitled to the full 5% share of the 50% distribution to local service agencies.

Petitioner shall prepare and lodge an appropriate order after hearing and shall serve a copy of the final order on all interested parties with an appropriate proof of service.

PR0000667 In the Matter of CYNTHIA E. DELL
Appearances are required. The parties shall be prepared to confirm the June 17, 2025 hearing regarding petitioner/administrator Morgan’s February 14, 2025, petition to identify heirs (alleged heirs Roloff, Long and Webb) and his February 14, 2025 petition for instructions (regarding an alleged real property lease/purchase agreement with Roloff). Petitioner has presented a witness list with time estimates. Any other party presenting evidence shall be prepared to identify all witnesses and time estimates for the same.

11. PR0000754 In the Matter of BONITA A. BRAND
No appearances are required. The petition to administer the estate is granted as prayed. The court, upon reconsideration, concludes that notice to Grant Pitchess or any potential heir(s) of the same is not required. The will includes a provision that all beneficiaries must survive decedent for 45 days to receive property under the will. Given this expression of “contrary intention,” any issue of Grant Pitchess, a deceased transferee, would not take in the transferee’s place. See Probate Code section 2110 (b).

May 30, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

P01-13326 In the Matter of Wilfred Martinez
No appearances are required. Notice of the petition for the eleventh account and report does not appear to have been provided to the conservatee. See Prob. Code § 1460(b)(2). The court continues this matter to August 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued date as required by law. Additionally, Petitioner shall submit a supplemental declaration clarifying the “unknown charges” referenced in the summary of account.
P15-15875 In the Matter of Sharon Beatty
Petitioner Paul Manka’s request for statutory and extraordinary attorney’s fees is denied without prejudice. Petitioner seeks attorney’s fees for work performed on behalf of Lori A. Greeninger, to include the filing of a request for approval of first and final account and report and petition for settlement. However, that petition has not yet been approved; as such, petitioner’s request is premature. Additionally, Probate Code section 10814 states, “If there are two or more attorneys for the personal representative, the attorney's compensation shall be apportioned among the attorneys by the court according to the services actually rendered by each attorney or as agreed to by the attorneys.” Since the first and final account has not yet been settled, the court is unable to determine the applicability of section 10814 under these circumstances.
Mark Dobson’s unopposed request that estate property be turned over to Benjamin Harvey, Esq., is granted. Counsel Manka is directed to turn over 125 Troy ounces of silver and keys to Lori Greeninger’s storage unit to Counsel Harvey pending further order of the court. Counsel Harvey is ordered to maintain those items in a safe deposit box and provide evidence of compliance within five court days of this order. The items shall not be accessed without further order of the court.
P20-16684 In the Matter of Dickie Marra
An appearances is required. Petitioner shall explain why four plus years (since October 2020) were required to complete administration of this estate. The court is favorably inclined to grant the petition for final distribution.
P22-16995 In the Matter of Phyllis Graham
No appearances are required. The court continues the order to show cause hearing to August 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit petitioner additional time to submit the accounting.
PR0000326 In the Matter of Jamie Dickerson
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report. The court continues this matter for receipt of the report to August 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
Additionally, the court is in receipt of conservator’s request to continue the accounting for a period of one year. The court is not favorably inclined to grant such a long continuance. Co-conservators shall file an accounting prior to the continued court date.
PR0000532 In the Matter of Jacob Bieker
An appearance is required. The inventory and appraisal have not been approved by the court’s appointed referee, Kevin Eckard. An amended inventory and appraisal is required and shall be filed two weeks prior to the next hearing date. In addition, the court needs clarification as to whether the other intestate heirs have waived their right to any portion of the estate and assigned the same to petitioner. The petition for final distribution is continued to August 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. for review of the amended inventory and appraisal. In addition, the court requires all intestate heirs to be present, either in person or remotely for the hearing, as the court wishes to personally confirm any waiver/assignment of rights with them. Petitioner shall give notice of the same to all intestate heirs.

PR0000634 In the Matter of Alan Bernard
No appearances are required. The spousal property petition is granted as prayed.
PR0000736 In the Matter of Rollin Shively
No appearances are required. The court continues this matter to August 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. No later than one week prior to the continued court date, petitioner shall provide a declaration regarding his efforts to provide notice to Rhonda Ceritelli. Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued date to all parties.
PR0000752 In the Matter of Heather Sanzone
Appearances are required. The court is favorably inclined to grant the request as prayed. Petitioner has submitted a proof of service of upon Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., but the same entity is not listed on the notice of hearing (DE-115). Petitioner shall confirm notice was provided.
PR0000762 In the Matter of Arthur Gallez
No appearances are required. The court continues this matter to August 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner shall provide proof of publication prior to the continued court date. See Probate Code § 8121. Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued date to all parties.
PR0000763 In the Matter of Donna Sauer, aka Donna Sauer
No appearances are required. The petition to administer the estate is granted as prayed.

May 23, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

P09-14943 In the Matter of Sean Krulisky
Appearances are required. Conservators Vincent Krulisky and Annette Lienhart shall show cause, if any, why the California conservatorship should not be terminated. Vincent Krulisky shall confirm his current address for service purposes.
P21-16866 In the Matter of Wilhelm Disselhoff
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to July 25, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Conservator shall file a declaration indicating her position on whether a final accounting is required in light of the court’s August 20, 2021 order.
P94-11981 In the Matter of Zachary Craig Skaggs
Appearances are required. The court requests an update on the status of the transfer of the conservatorship to Santa Barbara Superior Court.
PR0000253 In the Matter of Gerald W. Momii
No appearances are required. The petition for allowance of statutory compensation to attorney, authority to reimburse attorneys for costs advances, and for final distribution is granted as prayed.
PR0000368 In the Matter of the Estate of William Trumbo
No appearances are required. The court grants petitioner another six months to continue to administer the estate and sets a further review hearing for November 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.
PR0000442 In the Matter of The Sandon Trust
No appearances are required. The petition to approve the settlement agreement is granted as prayed. The court retains jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
PR0000638 In the Matter of William Aguilar
Appearances are required. The parties shall meet and confer regarding a discovery schedule, a date for a mediation before a mutually acceptable mediator, and a trial date. The court intends to set firm deadlines for the same.

PR0000672 In the Matter of Earlene Tankersley
Appearances are required. Ms. Bond shall show cause for her failure to appear on April 4, 2025 and on May 2, 2025. Ms. Bond shall advise the court whether she intends to proceed with her February 19, 2025 petition and shall also show cause why her petition should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute the same.
Ms. Massey shall advise the court whether she intends to proceed with her February 7, 2025 petition and shall also show cause why her petition should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute the same.

If either Ms. Bond or Massey intends to proceed with their petition, they must comply with all procedural requirements for each petition, including notice to all required parties (including the Attorney General given the potential charitable devise), service, publication, filing of signed duties, and lodging of the original will. In addition, if a cross-petition will continue, and the alleged will is subject to contest, any objector, including the public administrator, must comply with the objection and notice requirements of Probate Code section 8250, et seq. A hearing regarding these petitions will be set for July 18, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. All procedural requirements must be timely completed for a hearing that date. The court has reviewed the May 19, 2025 declaration of Ms. Bond; it appears that the Attorney General has still not been served with a copy of Ms. Bond’s petition and notice of hearing as required under Probate Code section 8111.

Ms. Bond’s May 21, 2025 motion to compel will also be heard on July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. for. Ms. Bond shall give notice to the Attorney General of such hearing. All parties are reminded to give notice to all parties in connection with all scheduled proceedings.
PR0000690 In the Matter of Fred G. Dean-Turner
No appearances are required. The conservatorship of the person and estate of Fred G. Dean-Turner is granted as prayed. The court sets a first annual review on May 15, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Conservator or any interested party may bring a separate noticed motion regarding the trust if deemed warranted.
PR0000698 In the Matter of Antonio Maresca
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report. On its own motion, the court continues this matter for receipt of the report to July 25, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the conservator and the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
PR0000726 In the Matter of Richard Samuel Bartholomew
Appearances are required.
The court has reviewed the public administrator’s May 20, 2025 declaration and update. The parties shall update the court on the status of the February 14, 2025 petition of the administrator and the March 28, 2025 petition of Lipski-Mosher.

The Lipski-Mosher petition has numerous defects which must be remedied: (1) there has been inadequate notice of the hearing and service; (2) there is no publication; (3) petitioner is the alternate executor and there has been no declination by the named executor, Corinne Mooers, and (4) signed duties and liabilities have not been filed. If Ms. Lipski-Mosher intends to proceed, she must remedy address all of these issues no later than July 3, 2025. A hearing regarding these petitions will be set for August 1, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. All procedural requirements must be timely completed for a hearing that date.

In addition, if a cross-petition will continue, and the alleged will is subject to contest, any objector, including the public administrator, must comply with the objection and notice requirements of Probate Code section 8250, et seq.
PR0000739 In the Matter of Sylvester Robinson
No appearances are required. The petition to administer the estate of Sylvester Robinson is granted as prayed.

May 16, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

P11-15182 In the Matter of Jacquelyn Munoz
No appearances are required. On May 9, 2025, the court granted the petition to fix residence outside California subject to conservator providing proof that Idaho has established a conservatorship by the review date. On its own motion, the court continues the biennial review to August 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Additionally, the court has not received the investigation review report. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the conservator and the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator. The investigator shall provide a copy of the report prior to the continued court date.
P19-16497 In the Matter of Jonathan G. Best
No appearances are required. The petition for approval of compensation to court-appointed counsel is granted as prayed.
PR0000003 In the Matter of Jade Kamal Rios

No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report. On its own motion, the court continues this matter for receipt of the report to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the conservator and the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.

PR0000117 In the Matter of Christopher Hogue

No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, and sets an order to show cause hearing for the same day and time. Conservator shall show cause why she failed to file and serve an accounting as ordered by the court on March 14, 2025. The clerk shall give notice of the order to show cause hearing.

PR0000207 In the Matter of Marcia Bauer
No appearances are required. The first and final report by administrator, waiver of accounting, administrator’s statutory fees, attorney’s fees and costs, holdback, and final distribution are granted as prayed.
PR0000453 In the Matter of Suzanne M. Perry-Miller

No appearances are required. The petition to appoint a successor conservator of the person and state is granted as prayed. Petitioner Matt Miller is appointed as conservator in place of Leticia Garcia. Additionally, on its own motion, the court continues this matter to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Sept. 6. Leticia Garcia shall file and serve an updated accounting as previously ordered by the court within the time requirements of the Probate Code prior to the continued court date.

PR0000543 In the Matter of James David Varner
No appearances are required. The petition for final distribution is granted as prayed.
PR0000557 In the Matter of Michael Zhukov
Appearances are not required. This matter has been removed from calendar in light of the notice of settlement.
PR0000613 In the Matter of Susanna Laureyssen
No appearances are required. The petition for final distribution is granted as prayed.
PR0000640 In the Matter of Alexandra Zhukov
Appearances are required. The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of mediation and resolution.
PR0000659 In the Matter of Ian Fredrick Ayton
No appearances are required. The petition for substituted judgment to create and fund a revocable trust and execute a pour-over will is granted as prayed.
PR0000712 In the Matter of Zane Davis

No appearances are required. The petitioner has noticed the amended petition hearing for June 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court continues this matter to that date and time. There is no waiver of bond by Shannin O’Connell on file. Petitioner shall either provide a signed waiver of bond by Ms. O’Connell two weeks prior to the next court date or the court will set bond.

PR0000714 In the Matter of Dylan Melanson
No appearances are required. The petition to appoint a limited conservatorship of the person is granted as prayed. The court sets a first annual review on March 20, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.
PR0000719 In the Matter of Jeffrey Stephenson
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation report. On its own motion, the court continues this matter for receipt of the report to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the conservator and court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
PR0000747 In the Matter of Tobias Criss-Harvey
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The petition lacks notice and proof of service of notice. Petitioner shall file and serve the same in accordance with the Probate Code prior to the continued court date.
PR0000748 Estate of Rita Stokes
No appearances are required. The court continues this matter to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The petition lacks a signed duties and liabilities statement. Petitioner shall file the same two weeks prior to the next court date. Petitioner shall give notice of the continued court date.
PR0000749 In the Matter of Betty Taylor
No appearances are required. The petition to administer the estate is granted as prayed.
PR0000754 In the Matter of Bonita Brand
No appearances are required. The court continues this matter to August 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The petition has a number of deficiencies. The petition does not include proof of publication. See Prob. Code § 8121. There is no signed duties and liabilities statement. See Prob. Code § 8404. The proof of service is not completely filled out. See Prob. Code § 8110. Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued court date as required by law. Petitioner may wish to consult counsel or may seek access to legal resources at the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center.
PR0000759 In the Matter of the Renfro Family Trust
No appearances are required. The petition to determine entitlement to distribute for a pretermitted spouse under Probate Code section 11700 is denied without prejudice.

Probate Code section 11700 provides: “At any time after letters are first issued to a general personal representative and before an order for final distribution is made, the personal representative, or any person claiming to be a beneficiary or otherwise entitled to distribution of a share of the estate, may file a petition for a court determination of the persons entitled to distribution of the decedent's estate.”

Here, this court has no jurisdiction to grant relief under this provision of law at this time. No proceedings to administer an estate have been commenced and no letters have issued. See, e.g., Smith v. Westerfield (1891) 88 Cal. 374, 380 (jurisdictional nature of statutory provisions related to probate ); see also Cal. Prac. Guide: Probate, Ch. 15-E at 15:636 (“ Petitions to determine distribution rights may be filed at any time after letters are first issued to a general personal representative and before an order for final distribution is made. [Prob.C. § 11700 ].”)

May 9, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

P11-15182 In the Matter of JACQUELYN MUNOZ
Appearances are required. The court is favorably inclined to grant the petition. The court is in receipt of conservator’s proof of service filed April 29, 2025. Conservator shall confirm that all interested parties (P. Munoz, D. Standring, Jessica Munoz and Jacquelyn Munoz, conservatee) were provided with notice of the May 9, 2025, continued petition date as required by California Probate Code section 2352, and file proof of service. If notice has been properly addressed, the court: will set a review hearing August 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6; and will direct conservator to either initiate conservatorship proceedings in Idaho or a petition to transfer the conservatorship prior to the continued review date.
P12-15334 In the Matter of HELEN POWELL
No appearances are required. The court has not received a status report from the court investigator or the conservator. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to July 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, for receipt of a report from both the investigator and conservator. The court investigator and conservator shall file their reports no later than 2 weeks prior to the continued date. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to conservator and the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
P14-15643 In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER JOSHUA HOWIE
Appearances are required. The petition for substituted judgment to sign a will and create and fund an irrevocable trust is granted as prayed. The parties shall advise the court whether any future request is anticipated in connection with the current conservatorship of the estate.
P15-15875 In the Matter of SHARON BEATTY
Appearances are required. The parties shall update the court on the status of settlement. The court was previously advised that a petition to approve a settlement, appoint a personal representative and distribution would be filed. No petition has been filed. In addition, counsel Harvey was previously directed to prepare an order for George Beauty, Russel Beauty and Nancy Guerra to show cause why the noted petition should not be approved. No proposed order to show cause has been lodged.
P18-16433 In the Matter of CONNOR ENGEL
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report. On its own motion, the court continues this matter for receipt of the report to July 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the conservators and the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
P20-16664 In the Matter of SANDRA ROBINSON
No appearances are required. The order to show cause issued to petitioner is discharged in the interests of justice. The court confirms the June 27, 2025, hearing date as to the second accounting.
P21-16975 In the Matter of ELLIOTT ROBERT HASTINGS
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report. On its own motion, the court continues this matter for receipt of the report to July 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the conservator and the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
PR0000169 In the Matter of THE JAMES J. BRICK SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST
No appearances are required. The first account and report of public guardian, trustee of special needs trust and petition for fees for trustee and her attorney are granted as prayed.
PR0000482 Conservatorship of EDWARD DURAN
No appearances are required. The first account and report of conservator of the person and estate and petition for fees for conservator and her attorney are granted as prayed.
PR0000495 In the Matter of DAVID RANDOLPH GRIFFIS
No appearances are required. The petition lacks the required notice and proof of service of notice. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to July 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioners shall service notice of the petition and continued date on all interested parties as required and shall submit proof of service to the courty no later than 2 weeks prior to the continued court date.
PR0000710 In the Matter of MILLER ERNEST HARPER
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to July 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit adequate notice with proof of service. Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued hearing date to all interested parties.
PR0000711 Guardianship of ASHER KEENAN KULP and CONNOR CAMERON KULP
No appearances are required. The court has not received the report from the court investigator. On its own motion, the court continues this matter to July 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, for receipt of a report from the court investigator. The court investigator shall file their report no later than 2 weeks prior to the continued date. The clerk shall provide notice of the continued court date. The clerk shall provide a copy of the minutes to the conservator and the court investigator. The clerk shall also telephonically notify the court investigator.
PR0000740 In the Matter of VIRGINIA OWEN WEDBERG
No appearances are required. The petition to determine succession to real property is granted as prayed.

PR0000741 Estate of MARIE S. SAWTELLE
No appearances are required. The petition to administer the estate of Marie S. Sawtelle is granted as prayed.
PR0000743 In the Matter of STEVEN E. GRAGG
No appearances are required. The petition to administer the estate of Steven E. Gragg is granted as prayed.
PR0000744 Estate of JANICE ANN BARBARO
No appearances are required. The petition to administer the estate of Janice Barbaro is granted as prayed.
PR0000745 In the Matter of KAREN TURLEY ADAMS
No appearances are required. The petition for appointment of successor trustee is granted as prayed.

May 2, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

CU0001700 In the Matter of City of Nevada City
No appearances are required. The court has received the receiver’s status report and the objection filed in connection therewith. The receiver indicates that a recommended plan will be submitted in the future. For now, the court continues the status conference to June 2, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued conference.
P08-14754 In the Matter of Maggie B. Echternacht
No appearances are required. The Court continues the petition to transfer hearing to June 13, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court is not in receipt of a proof of service of the petition to transfer. Notice is required pursuant to Probate Code section 2001(b). Conservators shall provide notice of the petition and continued hearing date to those entitled to notice under Probate Code section 1822, and provide proof of service of the same to the court in advance of the continued date.
P11-15188 In the Matter of Jared J. West
No appearances are required. At the request of the court investigator, the court continues this matter to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, so that the investigator can complete their report.
P16-15887 In the Matter of Andrew J. Bender
No appearances are required. The court has not received the investigation review report. On its own motion, the court continues this matter for receipt of the report to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The clerk shall advise the court investigator of the requested report.

P19-16532 In the Matter of Sean Manchester
No appearances are required. The 27 November 2024 first and final report of status of administration; petition to determine distribution rights; and petition to settle estate, accept waiver of accounting, and for final distribution are approved and relief is granted as prayed. Petitioner has adequately demonstrated that the creditor claim by Verizon Wireless has been satisfied.
P21-16983 In the Matter of the Jacobson Family Trust, et al.
No appearances are required. The court has reviewed the parties’ updated joint status report and appreciates their ongoing efforts to meet and confer to resolve the matter. As requested by the parties, a review hearing is continued to August 8, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The parties shall submit an updated joint status report no later than ten days before the review hearing date, including their meet and confer efforts as to petitioner’s objections to respondent’s second amended first account, as well as to the pre-death accounting prepared by petitioner.
P89-10877 In the Matter of Thomas Michael Odom
No appearances are required. The thirty-fourth report of conservator of the person and estate and petition for fees for conservator and her attorney are granted as prayed. The court sets the biennial review date on March 13, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The previous review date, March 14, 2026, is erroneous and vacated.
PR0000451 Conservatorship of Carolee Taylor
No appearances are required. The first report of conservator of the person and estate and petition for fees for conservator and her attorney are granted as prayed. The November 13, 2026 biennial review date is confirmed.
PR0000538 In the Matter of Tamara Cranwell
Appearances are required. The court has reviewed the update from the Public Guardian. On the court’s motion, a hearing regarding status of the sale of the conservatee’s residence and efforts to locate a less restrictive placement for conservatee in an assisted living community is set for June 27, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6.
PR0000600 In the Matter of Sean Adam Egan
No appearances are required. The amended petition for order determining title to real property is granted as prayed.
PR0000643 In the Matter of Thomas C. Norton
No appearances are required. The court granted counsel Harpainter’s requests for attorney fees and to be relieved on April 22, 2025. This hearing is removed from calendar.
PR0000672 In the Matter of Earlene Tankersley
Appearances are required. Before the court is the December 17, 2024 petition to administer the estate by the public administrator. Gabrielle Massey and Tiffanie Bond shall show cause why the February 7, 2025 cross-petition by Ms. Massey and the February 19, 2025 cross-petition by Ms. Bond should not be dismissed for failure to diligently prosecute the same. Additionally, Tiffanie Bond shall show cause for her failure to appear as required on April 4, 2025.

The court has reviewed the April 29, 2025 declaration from the Public Administrator indicated that Ms. Massey wishes to pursue her petition. If Ms. Massey and/or Ms. Bond intend to proceed, a future hearing date shall be set by which each petitioner shall ensure compliance with all procedural requirements for their petition(s) including notice to all required parties (including the Attorney General given the potential charitable devise), service, publication, and lodging of the original will. In addition, if a cross-petition will continue, and the alleged will is subject to contest, any objector, including the public administrator, must comply with the objection and notice requirements of Probate Code section 8250, et seq.

PR0000739 In the Matter of Sylvester Robinson

No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the petition to administer estate is continued to July 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. The court notes the petition is presently missing proof of publication, see Probate Code 8121, a signed statement of duties and liabilities, see Probate Code 8404, and a completed proof of service. See Probate Code 8110. Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued court date and file with the court the outstanding items.

April 25, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

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

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

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

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

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

April 18, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

PR0000614 In the Matter of Nyialong Steve Yang
No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025. On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
No appearances are required on April 22, 2025. The amended petition to administer the estate of Nyialong Steve Yang is granted as prayed.
PR0000643 In the Matter of Thomas C. Norton
No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025. On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
No appearances are required on April 22, 2025. The petition for the allowance of court appointed attorney fees and to be relieved as counsel are granted as prayed.
PR0000736 In the Matter of Rollin Wayne Shively
No appearances are authorized on April 18, 2025. On the court’s motion, this matter is continued to Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
No appearances are required on April 22, 2025. The court continues this matter to May 30, 2025, to permit the petitioner additional time to provide notice to Rhonda Ceritelli. Petitioner shall provide notice of the continued date.

April 11, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

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

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

April 4, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

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

March 28, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 21, 2025 Probate Tentative Rulings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ibid. (citations omitted).

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

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

12/5/24 Pet. ¶ 1.

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

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

Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 9, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

CL0002108 Dorton Drywall, et al. vs. James Clarke, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 25, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. A general denial was filed on April 29, 2025 by defendants. However, it is unclear whether this has been executed by both defendants. Defendants shall clarify the same in their next case management conference statement. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CL0002278 JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Vikki Vincenzi
Appearances are required. Donald Sherrill shall show cause, why he should not be sanctioned or this case dismissed for failing to file a request for default or a request for dismissal of defendant as ordered on March 3, 2025.
CL0002308 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. vs. Brianna Sawdey
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
CL0002395 Discover Bank vs. Natalie Bowen
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 25, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in Department 6. Defendant Bowen shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0000191 David Elliott, et al. v. Ellen Nevarez, et al.
No appearances are required. The court has received the requests for dismissal. The complaint and cross-complaint have been dismissed with prejudice.
CU0000385 Derek Olsen, et al. v. David Sugalski, et al.
Appearances are required. The parties shall update the court on the status of this case including resolution and whether any final judgments need be presented. Additionally, plaintiff shall update the court on defendant Wild Acorns Learning Village and whether a default will be sought as to this defendant.
CU0001162 Miles Hagood vs. Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc.
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
Additionally, Counsel Michael Rosenstein shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to appear as ordered on April 7, 2025.
CU0001249 Tina Warner v. Jennie Pope
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 25, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
CU0001307 Rick Ewald vs. Gary Liardon, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 25, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff indicates in his case management conference statement that defendants Michael Macritchie and Crescendo Capital have been served; however, the court has been unable to locate a proof of service for either defendant. Plaintiff shall address the same. Additionally, plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal for the remaining defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff to provide notice of continued case management conference.
CU0001354 Cynthia Gustafson vs. Safeway Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 25, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff indicates in their case management statement they have identified “Store Manager 1”. Plaintiff shall amend their filing to identify this party and shall file a proof of service regarding the same no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall give notice of the continued case management conference date.
CU0001444 Janet Littlefield, et al. vs. Homecraft Building & Design, Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to August 25, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
CU0001544 Caitlin Peters vs. Cara Krpalek, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to September 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s proof of service for defendant Jiri Krpalek, via Cara Krpalek. However, the service on defendant Jiri Krpalek appears to be defective. The proof of service does not indicate that a copy of the summons and complaint was mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid to defendant Krpalek at the residence where the copy of the summons and complaint were left, as required by Code Civ. Proc. 415.20. Plaintiff shall either file an amended proof of service or effectuate service in compliance with the statutory requirements no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
CU0001576 Michael Berson, et al. v. Daniel Martin, DDS, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to September 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court is still not in receipt of a proof of service for defendant Daniel C. Martin, DDS Dental Corporation, d/b/a Tahoe Oral Surgery and Implant Center. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of Daniel C. Martin, DDS Dental Corporation, d/b/a Tahoe Oral Surgery and Implant Center, no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall give notice of the continued case management conference date.
Additionally, plaintiff failed to timely file a case management conference statement and is admonished that failure to file a future case management conference statement may result in sanctions.
CU0001651 Joseph Sacks vs. Navy Federal Credit Union
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to September 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union shall file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0001738 Nationstar Mortgage LLC vs. The Testate and Intestate Successors of Gilbert J. Vega, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to September 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendants at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0001938 U.S. Bank National Assoc. vs. Joseph Miller, DMD, Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to September 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendants at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0001940 Christopher Gulick, et al. vs. Stephen Halverson
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to September 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiffs shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
CU0001945 Jaymon Campbell, v. Jersey Mike's Subs, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to September 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit time for the filing of any responsive pleading.
CU0001947 Jean Marie Se'epa Barbee vs. Lisa Louise Sperling
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to September 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
CU0001955 Kathryn Haynes, et al. vs. Volker Schrezenmeier, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to September 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court has not received a proof of service for defendant Volkar Construction and Design. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Additionally, Defendant Volker Schrezenmeier shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
TCU22-8066 Theodore Lachowicz, et al. vs. Mark Tanner Construction, Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to September 8, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Blake Hoffman, dba Blake Hoffman Wood Floors, shall file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint filed April 29, 2025, or plaintiff shall request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
Additionally, prior to the next case management conference, Sierra Sage Roofing and Truckee Mountain Home Center INC., dba Mountain Home Center, shall confirm they have filed an answer to the Mark Tanner Construction Cross-Complaint.

Also, it appears to the court that Kelly Brothers Painting, Inc., filed a response after default was entered on April 26, 2023. Mark Tanner Construction and Kelly Brothers Painting, Inc., shall confirm their understanding of the status of that litigation prior to the continued court date and accordingly update the court no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.

Finally, the Special Master shall submit a letter to the court 15 days prior to the continued case management conference with any updated information regarding settlement.

June 2, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

CL0002519 Discover Bank vs. Harleen Sangha
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 18, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in Department 6. Defendant Sangha shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CL0002520 Discover Bank vs. Brenda Iozzia
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 18, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in Department 6. Defendant Iozzia shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CL0002521 Bank of America, N.A. vs. Melissa Burdick
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court sets this matter for trial on August 18, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall serve the summons and complaint and give notice of the trial date as well.
CL0002593 Fire Recovery Services vs. Robert Lowry, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Robert Lowry has filed a response but Defendant Lisa Lowry has not. Defendant Lisa Lowry shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
Additionally, no party filed timely case management conference statements. The parties are admonished that failure to file and serve a timely case management conference statement may subject the party to sanctions.
CU0000376 Liam Moriarty v. Tahoe Club Employee Company, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Counsel Hakimi and Counsel Havey shall show cause why sanctions should not issue for failure to file a stipulation regarding expedited schedule for discovery, resolution of the class and issue of setting matter for trial as ordered by this court on May 5, 2025. Additionally, both counsel shall also show cause why sanctions should not issue for failing to file timely case management conference statements.
CU0000991 Christopher Stormbringer v. Turning Point
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court sustained defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend. Defendant shall file a judgment of dismissal prior to the continued case management date.
CU0001323 Ryan Shirley vs. Dynasty Valley, LLC
No appearances are required. The court continued the case management conference date to September 15, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to provide the parties additional time to complete mediation. No later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference date, the parties shall submit a joint statement on the status of mediation and/or arbitration.
CU0001700 City of Nevada City vs. Gerald Satterfield, et al.
No appearances are required. The court confirms the June 13, 2025 hearing at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6.
CU0001924 Robert Ponce vs. Hunt & Sons, Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Hunt & Sons, Inc., shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0001925 Gianna Garrett vs. Jack Laird
No appearances are required. This case is at issue.
Trial is hereby set as follows: 5 day jury trial.

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

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

MSC: December 15, 2026, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

CU0001926 Karl Grothman, et al. vs. April Rizzi
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
CU0001927 Steven Fischer vs. McKenzie Fisher, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant McKenzie Fisher no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Additionally, Plaintiff shall clarify in his case management statement why CSAA Insurance Exchange was served but is not a named party in the First Amended Complaint as well as his intention to proceed against Arnold Goldberg. Plaintiff shall give notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0001929 Indigo Kernytsky vs. Shane Alvarez
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff failed to file a timely case management conference statement and is admonished that failure to do so can result in sanctions. Defendant filed a timely case management conference statement but indicates unavailability for trial until July 2026. Defense counsel does not provide any information to support his unavailability such as his trial schedule.
The parties are advised that the court will set trial dates in this case at the next court date as this case is at issue. The parties are advised to meet and confer regarding trial dates and are each ordered to submit timely and complete case management conference statements that indicate their availability within the next twelve months.
CU0001931 Kevin Jarrell vs. Aranda Herrern-Ward, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.

May 27, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

CL0002507 Discover Bank vs. Charles R Bowers
No appearances are required. This case is at issue. Trial is hereby set for August 25, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff and the clerk shall give notice.
CU0001653 Magic Sun Solar, Inc. vs. Shawn McCall, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to August 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.

May 19, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

CL0002197 Citibank N.A. vs. Chris Lancaster
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
CL0002483 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. vs. Travis M. Schlabach
No appearances are required. This matter has been removed from calendar in light of the issuance of a default judgment.
CL0002492 Discovery Engery, LLC vs. Spingola Electric, Inc.
No appearances are required. This matter has been removed from calendar in light of the issuance of a default judgment.
CU0000512 eCapital Asset Based Lending v. Nicole Medina, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
CU0000634 Carla Marie Vieira vs. California Dept. of Transportation, et al
No appearances are required. This case appears at issue.

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

Trial: April 7, 2026 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: March 27, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: March 16, 2026, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

CU0000663 Brian Kelley, et al. vs. Rebecca Aycock, et al.
No appearances are required. Status regarding dismissal is set for June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
CU0000928 RC Gas, LLC vs. TJ's Roadhouse of Cedar Ridge Inc., et al.
Appearances are required. The parties shall show cause why this matter should not be dismissed in light of their settlement.
CU0001683 County of Nevada vs. Michael James Taylor
Appearances are required. The parties shall be prepared to update the court on the status of the bankruptcy and its effect, if any, on this litigation. Additionally, Defendant Taylor failed to timely file a case management conference statement and is admonished that failure to serve a statement for future case management conferences may subject him to sanctions.
CU0001740 Jamie Jones, et al. vs. Lena Otgonbyamba, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication (as appropriate) or a request for dismissal for defendants as ordered by this court on February 24, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
CU0001869 California FAIR Plan vs. Glenn David Jones, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
CU0001901 Heather Miles v. Michael Smallwood

Appearances are required. This case appears to be at issue. Plaintiff Miles indicates no answer has been filed. However, the court is in receipt of an answer from defendant Smallwood. Defendant Smallwood shall confirm whether the answer was served on plaintiff. Jury fees are unpaid.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 3-day court trial.

Trial: February 3, 2026, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: January 23, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

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

CU0001902 Travis Gould vs. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated. No proof of service has been filed as to any defendant. Plaintiff shall promptly initiate steps to effectuate service.
CU0001903 Sheree Bartol, et al. vs. Douglas A. Mcintosh
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant McIntosh shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0001905 Discover Labs Inc. vs. Golden Empire Nursing & Rehab Center, L.P
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
CU0001996 In Re Theodore Schall

Appearances are required. Petitioner shall provide the court with a proposed notice that complies with Cal. Gov. Code section 66499.24. Additionally, Petitioner shall inform the court of his understanding of the publication procedure. Petitioner shall also recommend an appropriate review date to determine whether any objections have been filed.

PR0000214 Estate of Mathew Jay Forrest
Appearances are required. Administrator Jessica Akin shall update the court on the status of the estate and whether she will be obtaining new representation.

May 12, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

CL0002198 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. vs. Darren S Pool
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
CL0002331 United Financial Casualty Company vs. Katie Powers
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication (as appropriate) or a request for dismissal for defendant Powers as ordered by this court on March 17, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
CL0002402 American Express National Bank vs. Andre Villa
No appearances are required. The court dismisses this matter without prejudice and retains jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
CL0002463 Progressive Select Insurance Company vs. Nichole Anderson
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
CU0000284 Tod DuBois v Scott Fetty, et al.
No appearances are required. Plaintiff has filed the second amended complaint. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, to permit plaintiff time to serve the complaint and for defendants to respond.
CU0000656 Riley Gault vs. Mark Steffen
Appearances are required. The parties shall be prepared to inform the court on the status of settlement in this matter.
CU0000943 Russell Roark vs. Stephen Cardosi, et al.
No appearances are required. This case is at issue. Jury fees are unpaid.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 4-day court trial.

Trial: December 9, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: November 21, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: November 17, 2026, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

CU0001181 Cynthia Hermosa vs. Adam Rayford Kilpatrick, et al.
Appearances are required. Counsel Joe Laub shall show cause why the action against defendant Garrett Warner Woodgrift should not be dismissed and/or you sanctioned for failure to serve the summons and complaint as order on September 16, 2024. The parties failed to file CMC statements and are admonished to do so henceforth.
CU0001613 Judith and Coleman Bowen v. Town of Truckee
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6.
CU0001766 Tessa Hart vs. Hooper & Weaver Mortuary, Inc.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit the parties to engage in mediation.
CU0001768 Richard Herbert Morris, III. vs. WILLIAM HAUER, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 4, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file a notice of settlement and dismissal prior to the continued case management conference date. Any request for retention of jurisdiction must be made on the record by all parties or via signed stipulation by all parties. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference date.
CU0001787 Hills, Carol Lynn v. State of California
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication (as appropriate) or a request for dismissal for defendant State of California as ordered by this court on March 17, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
CU0001788 Robert Tonnies v. Mark Gold

Appearances are required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CU0001791 Robert Tonnies v. Karen Nathanson

Appearances are required.

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

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

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

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

CU0001794 PHH Mortgage Corporation vs. Brenda Marie Durtschi, et al.
No appearances are required. A default prove up hearing is set for August 1, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 6.
CU0001795 Krissa Connelley vs. Todd Tuggle, et al.

No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Cross-Complainants Tuggles shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to identify and serve any desired “Roes 1 through 50” as ordered by this court on March 17, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.

CU0001798 Sheldon Lynn Thompson v. Christina Joy Callahan
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication (as appropriate) or a request for dismissal for defendant Callahan as ordered by this court on March 21, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
CU0001845 Mark Gold, et al. vs. Robert A. Tonnies, et al.
Appearances are required. The court is inclined to set a default prove up hearing for August 15, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 6.
CU0001891 Ghanshyam Pokal et al vs. Hardik A. Patel et al
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
CU0001892 Kara Reyes vs. Greg Zaller
No appearances are required. This case is at issue. Jury fees are unpaid.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 4-day court trial.

Trial: February 3, 2026 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: January 23, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

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

CU0001899 Fowler Center, LLC vs. City of Grass Valley, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to August 4, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Cross-Complainant City shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of Cross-Defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
CU0001922 David Reeves vs. Wesley Meigs
No appearances are required. This case is at issue. Jury fees are unpaid.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 4-day court trial.

Trial: February 24, 2026 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: February 13, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: February 2, 2026, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

May 5, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

CL0001352 Rocky Top Rentals, LLC vs. Maureen Elizabeth Laffey, et al.
Appearances are required. Plaintiff has served defendant Laffey, but has again failed to serve the summons and complaint on defendant Cunningham. Moreover, there is no reference to defendant Cunningham in plaintiff’s case management conference statement. Jonathan Cahill shall show cause why the matter against defendant Cunningham should not be dismissed for failure to serve the summons and complaint as previously ordered by this court. Defendant Laffey shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CL0001803 Ferguson Enterprises, LLC vs. Jacqueline Stafford
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit plaintiff additional time to complete service by publication. Plaintiff shall file proof of service no later than 2 weeks prior to continued case management conference date.
CL0002311 United Financial Casualty Co. vs. Kaifus Klae Knoefler
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication (as appropriate) or a request for dismissal for defendant Knoefler as ordered by this court on March 10, 2025.
CL0002401 LVNV Funding, LLC vs. Kim Dutra
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or state their agreement regarding the same on the record.
CL0002457 State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. vs. Delvin Dunks
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
CU0000376 Liam Moriarty v. Tahoe Club Employee Co., et al.
Appearances are required. This case was filed in 2022 and the court is concerned as to its age. The court seeks an update on the status of class certification and is inclined to set a deadline for any motion for the same by no later than Summer 2025. Additionally, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the necessity of a Belaire-West process for absent class members. Finally, plaintiff failed to submit a timely case management conference statement. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to file case management conference statements in advance of the continued date can result in sanctions.
CU0001207 Amanda Powell vs. Briarpatch Coop. of Nevada, Inc., et al.
Appearances are required. The court seeks a status update from the parties. On March 24, 2025 the court ordered the parties to file a motion for preliminary approval of class and PAGA settlement prior to the continued case management date. No motion or settlement has been filed with the court.
CU0001285 17031, LLC vs. Joseph Jacks, et al.
No appearances are required. This case is at issue.

Trial is hereby set as follows: 4-day nonjury trial.

Trial: December 9, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: November 21, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: November 10, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

CU0001525 State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. vs. Joshua Edward Daniel
No appearances are required. A default prove up hearing is set for July 25, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 6.
CU0001661 Deborah Wagner vs. George McKnight, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to July 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
CU0001761 Ashley Sanchez vs. Vail Resorts Management Co., et al.
Appearances are required. The parties shall advise the court on whether Nevada County is the proper venue for this litigation and the basis for the same. Additionally, defendants are again admonished for failing to provide a timely case management conference statement. Defendants are advised that failure to file a timely case management statement will result in sanctions.
CU0001780 Elliott Allen Roberts vs. Austin Wallace
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Wallace shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0001882 Elizabeth Freschi vs. Drake Woodford. et al.
No appearances are required. This case is at issue. Jury fees are unpaid.

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

Trial: February 24, 2026 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

PTC: February 13, 2026, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6

MSC: January 26, 2026, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.

The clerk shall correct e-court records to reflect the correct surname for plaintiff: Freschi.

CU0001885 Paula Onescu, et al. vs. Oakridge Apartments
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendant no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.

April 28, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

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

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

April 21, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

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

No appearances are required. This case is at issue.

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, all parties have again failed to file timely case management conference statements. The parties are admonished that failure to file case management conference statements in advance of the continued date will result in sanctions. Plaintiff shall provide notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0001643 Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC vs. Ashley Parker, et al.
No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6, and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned or the action against Ashley Parker dismissed for failing to file a request for default or a request for dismissal as to that defendant as ordered on March 3, 2025. Additionally, plaintiff again failed to file a timely case management conference statement and shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
CU0001649 Debbie Havener vs. Shawna Sullivan, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why she should not be sanctioned or this matter dismissed for failing to file a proof of service, an application for publication (as appropriate) or a request for dismissal for defendant Shawna Sullivan as ordered by the court on March 3, 2025. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
CU0001652 Pawnee Leasing Corporation vs. 1st Choice R & R LLC, et al.
Appearances are required. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned and/or their case dismissed for failing to file a request for default regarding defendant First Choice R&R, LLC., as ordered by the court on January 6, 2025.
Additionally, no parties submitted timely case management conference statements. The parties are admonished that failure to file case management conference statements in advance of the continued date can result in sanctions.
CU0001656 Richard Cristdahl v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. The court has received the request for dismissal from plaintiff. This case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The order to show cause issued against Richard Cristdahl is discharged in the interests of justice.
CU0001715 William Neil v. County of Nevada, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
CU0001750 McKellar Tree Service & Logging, Inc. vs. Blue Lead Gold Mining, LLC, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Enegix Mining Group shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least one week prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0001762 William Dean Ferreira vs. Stephanie Diane Stone-Ferreira, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
CU0001842 Charles Eugene Murdock vs. Jodi Michelle Andrews
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
CU0001844 Wells Fargo Bank vs. Tim Radford, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
Additionally, plaintiff failed to submit a timely case management conference statement. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to file a case management conference statement in advance of the continued date may result in sanctions.
CU0001848 Pamela Bell vs. Dan Powers, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Plaintiff shall file proof of service, an application for service by publication (as appropriate), or a request for dismissal of defendants no later than two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
Additionally, plaintiff failed to submit a timely case management conference statement. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to file case management conference statement in advance of the continued date may result in sanctions.
CU0001849 Gregory Thrush vs. Jose Antonio Valdovinos
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Valdovinos shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference.
Defendant Valdovinos failed to file a timely case management conference statement and is admonished that failure to file a case management conference statement in advance of the continued date may result in sanctions.
CU21-085893 Tom Amesbury, et al. vs. Barbara Heger, et al.
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to June 16, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 to permit pending motions to be adjudicated.
PR0000442 In the Matter of The Sandon Trust
No appearances are required. This matter was incorrectly calendared. The court continues this matter to May 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for the petition to approve the settlement agreement.

April 14, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 7, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 1, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

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

March 24, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

CL0000572 Gerry Reis v. Roger Reis

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

CL0001259 Deal, Thomas M v. Fred Gerkensmeyer, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The operative complaint is the first amended complaint. There appears to be a June 13, 2024 proof of service as to both defendants and no responsive pleading. These minutes shall be distributed to all parties and their counsel including counsel for the Regional Housing Authority, which made a previous appearance. All parties are directed to appear at the next conference.
CL0001985 Cavalry SPV I LLC as assignee of Synchrony vs. Deborah Rawson
Appearances are required for status regarding dismissal. If the parties wish the court to retain jurisdiction, they should file a written stipulation under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
CL0002062 Velocity Investments LLC vs. Devin Smith
This matter will be heard on the 1:00 p.m. calendar.
CL0002352 Sun Forest Springs, LLC vs. Patricia Johnson
Appearances are required. Petitioner shall update court on the status of this case.
CU0000512 eCapital Asset Based Lending v. Medina, Nicole et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 19, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6 following pending motions.
CU0001082 Stephen David Protzman Jr v. Hansen Brothers Enterprises
No appearance is required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned and/or his case dismissed for failing to comply with the previous order to file a proof of service, an application for service by publication (if desired), or a request for dismissal as directed on December 23, 2024. Plaintiff is also ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to file and serve a timely case management conference statement. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference and OSC hearing
CU0001207 Amanda Powell vs. Briarpatch Cooperative Of Nevada, Inc., et al.
No appearances are required. Upon the request of the parties, the court continues this matter to May 5, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 for status regarding class approval and settlement. The parties shall file a motion for preliminary approval of class and PAGA settlement prior thereto set for hearing on an appropriate future date.
CU0001386 In the Matter of RISE GRASS VALLEY, INC., a Nevada corporation
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to April 28, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. The court appreciates the parties’ efforts to explore how appropriately to address the issues of this case including their stipulation as to bifurcation. At present, however, the parties have not explained why briefing of 125 pages is required to address the vested-rights related claim. The parties must provide the court with additional information as to the nature and complexity of this issue so that the court can make an informed decision as to the length of briefs to authorize. The parties shall submit a joint statement as to the same of no more than three pages no later than 14 days prior to the next scheduled conference.
CU0001664 Carla Markeeta Jefferson, et al. vs. Heating-Cooling Service Co., et al.
Appearances are required. This case is at issue and the court intends to set trial. The parties shall meet and confer in advance and be prepared to suggest an appropriate trial date.
CU0001723 Umpqua Bank vs. Joseph A. Miller, DMD, Inc., et al.
Appearances are not required. The court has received the March 20, 2025, report of plaintiff including its request to expand the receivership. No withdrawals shall be made from any bank account of the dental business unless agreed by all parties and approved by the court. Defendant shall file any response to the March 20, 2025, report no later than March 26, 2025, noon. Any reply shall be filed no later than March 28, 2025, noon. The matter is set for hearing on the law and motion calendar for April 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. A further case management conference will be set on that date.
CU0001796 Sonya Sokolow v. Environmental Health Director Amy Irani
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service of summons. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service or request for dismissal no later than one week before the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0001811 Auto Fraud Legal Center LLP fna Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, LLP vs. Dalton Workman
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 16, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Workman shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least one week prior to the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
Additionally, Plaintiff failed to submit a case management conference statement. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to serve a statement for future case management conferences may subject them to sanctions.
CU22-086160 KEVIN MALONE vs. WILLIAM FERREIRA
Appearances are required. This case is at issue.
Trial is hereby set as follows: 9-day jury trial.

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

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

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

March 17, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

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

Trial: September 30, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
PTC: September 19, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
MSC: September 8, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
CU0001611 Fora Financial Asset Securitization 2021 LLC vs. TJ's Roadhouse of Nevada City LLC, et al.
No appearance is required. A hearing regarding default judgment is set for June 27, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Dept. 6.
CU0001620 Beau Grady vs. Loren Ralph Winters
Appearances are required. This case is at issue.
Trial is hereby set as follows: 5-day jury trial.

Trial: December 2, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
PTC: November 21, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
MSC: November 10, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
The February 19, 2025 order to show cause is discharged in the interests of justice. The court notes that plaintiff failed to file a case management conference statement as required.
CU0001698 James Saunders Grill v. Eleonore Anderson, et al.
Appearances are not required. The court has entered dismissals with prejudice for both the complaint and cross-complaint as requested.
CU0001781 Kathlene Bonnigson vs. Albertsons Safeway LLC
Appearances are required. This case is at issue. Parties shall confirm availability of dates below.
Trial is hereby set as follows: 7-day jury trial.
Trial: October 28, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
PTC: October 17, 2025, 11:00 a.m., Dept. 6
MSC: October 6, 2025, 10:00 a.m., Dept. 6.
CU0001787 Carol Lynn Hills v. State of California
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued until May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. 6. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service, application for service by publication (if deemed appropriate), or request for dismissal not later than one week before the continued case management conference. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued case management conference.
CU0001793 Jamie Davidson vs. Bluebell Holdings, LLC
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to April 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6 following defendant’s motion to compel arbitration set for April 4, 2025.
CU0001794 PHH Mortgage Corporation vs. Brenda Marie Durtschi, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Defendant Durtschi shall file a responsive pleading, or plaintiff shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant at least one week prior to the continued case management conference.
CU0001795 Krissa Connelley vs. Todd Tuggle, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to May 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 6. Cross-Complainants shall identify and serve any desired “Roes 1 through 50” by the next case management conference.

June 5, 2025 Department 3 Guardianship Annual Review Tentative Ruling

Notice:

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

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

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

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

06/05/2025 at 9:00 a.m.

Guardianship Calendar Tentative Rulings Department 3

Case No. PR0000255 In the Matter of: Aliyah P.

The minor has attained the age of majority. The guardianship has terminated as a matter of law.

Case No. PR0000265 In the Matter of: Raymond R.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interests of the minor. The Court has reviewed the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 06/03/2025. Your appearance on Thursday, 06/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 06/04/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.

Case No. PR0000276 In the Matter of: Arianna T.

Guardianship remains necessary, convenient and in the best interests of the minor. The Court has reviewed the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 04/14/2025. Your appearance on Thursday, 06/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. is not necessary. The next annual review hearing is set for Thursday, 06/04/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California Please check the Court website 2 business days before the hearing date to verify if you need to come to that hearing date.

Case No. PR0000502 In the Matter of: Valeria G.

The Court has received and reviewed the GC-251 Annual Confidential Status Report filed on 05/06/2025. The matter is set for hearing on Thursday, 06/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of the Superior Court of California. Personal appearance is required unless Guardian files a corrected GC-251 Annual Confidential Status Report with complete information in items 3, 4, and 7 on or before June 3, 2025.

Friday, June 6, 2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference

Friday, May 2, 2025 Department 3 Family Law Status Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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.

These are the Court’s tentative rulings. In order to argue at the hearing, you must notify the parties and, thereafter, notify the clerk’s office by email at OA@nccourt.net or by calling (530)362-4309, Ext. 4 no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day prior to the date and time set for hearing. If you do not so notify all other parties and the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court.
If neither party gives that notice, your appearance at the status conference. is not necessary UNLESS the tentative decision in your case requires that appearance.
No Judgment has been entered in this case yet. No Judgment or other orders will be entered automatically. Moving forward with this case will require action from at least one party.
If you need forms or assistance with the orders in item 2, you may contact the attorney of your choice or the Nevada County Court Self-Help Center at selfhelpcenter@nccourt.net or 530-362-4309, Ext. 5. See Superior Court of the County of Nevada - Self Help Center | Family Law Facilitator | Small Claims Advisor (nccourt.net) for hours and further information.
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 process, the orders to serve and file the above documents will be vacated at the time that this opt out is effective. These documents will still be required before the case can proceed further. The Court can place the case back on the Status Conference calendar and reinstate a filing deadline for these documents on request of either party or by the Court giving notice of a new Status Conference date.
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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001619

Petitioner: Knox, Keenen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Zolling, Kimberly

Attorney: Self-Represented

This is the third status conference. Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
  1. FL-270 RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND  SUPPORT OF MINOR CHILDREN OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001623

Petitioner: Kendrick, Scott

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kendrick, Karen

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001644

Petitioner: Peeler, Jennifer Jasmine

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Peeler, Jason Daniel

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001651

Petitioner: Ford, Tara

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Tyner, Cath

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001673

Petitioner: Dana, Jayleen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Dana, Justin

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002167

Petitioner: Gross, Mary

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Gunderson, Byron David

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002176

Petitioner: Hinrichs, Samantha

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Salmonson, Karl

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the delivery method of the documents.
2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the delivery method of the documents.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002190

Petitioner: Plisik, Michael

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Plisik, Kristina

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002199

Petitioner: Lachman, Lori

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: McAlinn, Shawn

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the delivery method of the documents.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002205

Petitioner: Martinez, Sophie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Martinez, Anthony James

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002216

Petitioner: Kemmer, Susanne

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Tackaberry, Michael

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the person served or the date of service of the documents.
3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002217

Petitioner: Kenney, Amanda

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kenney, Jeffery

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002219

Petitioner: Castro, Kayla

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Castro, Louis

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons . FL-115 is not complete. Proof of service was filed on the incorrect form and does not have all required information. If the original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served. When the Court has the correct Proof of Service and it has been at least 30 days since that service, the Court requires one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.
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 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002220

Petitioner: Taylor-Hren, Megan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Elliot, Jeremiah

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002228

Petitioner: Torres, Pablo

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Yarala, Stephanie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the delivery method of the documents.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002235

Petitioner: Thompson, Robert Wesley

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Allee, Rhonda Lee

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner unless nullity judgment is ordered by the Court.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent unless nullity judgment is ordered by the Court.
3. Corrected FL-120 Response from Respondent stating the ground for dissolution of marriage.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002258

Petitioner: Thompson, Aaron

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Cohen, Liz

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002278

Petitioner: Lund, Ryan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Hunt, Kylie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the 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 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002290

Petitioner: Amezcua, Corinne

Attorney: Thompson, Sara

Respondent: Amezcua, Kenneth

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002624

Petitioner: Fry, Maeve

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Fry, Orvin Carl

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002722

Petitioner: Schlanger, Karen Ann

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Schlanger, Eric Michael

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002739

Petitioner: Swisher, Brian

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Swisher, Christine

Attorney: Grim, Olivia

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002746

Petitioner: Salivar, Kathryn Louise

Attorney: Granger, Jennifer

Respondent: Salivar, Mark A.

Attorney: Bell, Joseph J.

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002769

Petitioner: Buletti, Cortney

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

Respondent: Buletti, Ernesto

Attorney: Creagham, Charlotte

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002772

Petitioner: Haguel, Rafael

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Greenberg, Elka

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002785

Petitioner: Perry, Rene S.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Perry, James F.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002788

Petitioner: Kelley, Rachelle

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kelley, Eric P.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002802

Petitioner: Freehling, Daniel

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Freehling, Adriana Caceres Arrieta De

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002823

Petitioner: Richard, Debra

Attorney: Thompson, Sara

Respondent: Richard, Gary

Attorney: Christie, Nancy

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

06/06/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002872

Petitioner: Bump, Paula

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Bump, James Ronald III

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 12/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 12/03/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 12/05/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001545

Petitioner: Nielson, Kyla

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Corbett, Wade

Attorney: Self-Represented

This is the third status conference. Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
2. waived.
3. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
4. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
5. 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001570

Petitioner: Martisko, Mollie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Martisko, Chase

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001586

Petitioner: Setzer, Joe C.

Attorney: John Downing

Respondent: Setzer, Darline L.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001592

Petitioner: Zahediahrami, Seyed Habibollah

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Moseley, Haley Elizabeth

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001600

Petitioner: Talley, Krystal

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Carson, Alexander

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001616

Petitioner: Nelson, Geoffrey

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Nelson, Allison

Attorney: Self-Represented

This is the third status conference. Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
2. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
3. FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.
The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001618

Petitioner: Prieto, Savanna

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Prieto, Antonio

Attorney: Self-Represented

This is the third status conference. Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. If Petitioner does not appear at the status conference, the case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
2. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
3. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner.
4. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent.
5. 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0001670

Petitioner: Hanson, Lora

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Hanson, Dustin

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002051

Petitioner: Cooper, Theresa

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Cooper, Nicholas

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002057

Petitioner: Sawi, Kayla

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Sawi, Jared

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002110

Petitioner: Strouss, Nicole

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

Respondent: Strouss, Ian

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002116

Petitioner: Perrine, Kellie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Perrine II, Lyndon

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002117

Petitioner: Hallberg, Helen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Hallberg, Austin

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date and delivery method of the documents.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002137

Petitioner: Hanson, Joseph Scott

Attorney: Anderson, William Self-Represented

Respondent: Hanson, Eva Marie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that 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 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002140

Petitioner: Frye, Jeana

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Frye, Dwaine

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002152

Petitioner: Peters, Michelle D.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Peters, Justin J.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002578

Petitioner: Trelawny-Barrett, Alice

Attorney: Montgomery, D. Laurence

Respondent: Berry, Jacob Peter Erik

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002662

Petitioner: Stone, Brianna Elise

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Stone, Phillip Franklin

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002673

Petitioner: Shady, Samantha

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Shady, Brett

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons if parties want date of marital termination before 05/22/2025.
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 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002674

Petitioner: Morton, Kyle

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Morton, Lorelly

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002679

Petitioner: Farrage, Regina Mae

Attorney: Anderson, James-Phillip

Respondent: Farrage, Steven James Mason

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002692

Petitioner: Lawrence, Jeffrey Deinnis

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Lawrence, Christine

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons OR request from Petitioner for additional time to serve documents OR CIV-110 Request for Dismissal if Petitioner no longer wants to proceed.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. .
3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002704

Petitioner: Elizade, Melissa

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Estrada, Benjamin

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent. Respondent must serve disclosures because he signed settlement agreement. .
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002705

Petitioner: Dalbeck, Michael

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

Respondent: Knudeler, Stacey

Attorney: Miller, Chandra (Ltd. Scope)

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002713

Petitioner: Alexander, Amber

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Alexander, Glen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002716

Petitioner: Mosbarger, Sarah

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

Respondent: Mosbarger, Jordan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons showing service of amended Petition and Summons.
2. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
3. Proof of Service has not been received. When it has been at least 30 days since the Amended Summons and Petition were served on Respondent, one of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002717

Petitioner: Cordery, Rhonda C.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Cordery, William A.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure. .
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002720

Petitioner: Jorgensen, Jazzmyn

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Smedley, Tyler

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 11/07/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 11/05/2025.
The Court notes that the following are still required:
1. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.
2. One of the following:
  1. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR
  2. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR
  3. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure.
The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 11/07/2025, 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

05/02/2025, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002737

Petitioner: Garren, Eric

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Garren, Heather

Attorney: Miller, Chandra (Ltd Scope)

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001395

Petitioner: Restad, Barbara

Attorney: Montero, John V.

Respondent: Restad, Lawrence

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001441

Petitioner: Menig, Faith

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Menig, Ryan

Attorney: Miller, Chandra (Ltd scope)

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001458

Petitioner: Dalmau, Brandee

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Martinelli, David

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

This is the third status conference. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. No further status conference will be set.
The Court notes that 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

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

Case No. FL0001467

Petitioner: Andrews, Jodi

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Walsh, Robert

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001502

Petitioner: Garcia, Thomas Ronald

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Garcia, Candice S.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001508

Petitioner: Toohey, Candice

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Toohey, Brian

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001776

Petitioner: Clanton, Erinlee

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Clanton, Christopher

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001992

Petitioner: Skowyra, Allyssa Fennelly

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Skowyra, Daniel Joseph

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002007

Petitioner: Peterson, Julia Anne

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Miller, Matthew Scott

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002023

Petitioner: Leonard, Tamera Ann

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Leonard Michael Ryan

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002050

Petitioner: Martinelli, Christopher Edmund

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Martinelli, Jennifer Lisa

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002063

Petitioner: Johnson, Nathan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Johnson, Heather

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002407

Petitioner: Jaime, Kasey

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Jaime, David

Attorney: Anderson, William

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002539

Petitioner: Whetton, Lucy

Attorney: Alexander, Kristen

Respondent: Whetton, Guy

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002541

Petitioner: Monroe, Murli

Attorney: Mercer, Eric

Respondent: Guzman, Bryan Allen

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002542

Petitioner: Tracy, Michelle

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Lavoie, Jeremie

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002543

Petitioner: Block, Sharlene Renee

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Block, Jeffery Steven

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002549

Petitioner: Berry, Rick

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Berry, Lisa Bonney

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002564

Petitioner: Canepa, Gabriella Frances

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Canepa, Andre Jae

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002569

Petitioner: Luquin, Lauren Kathleen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Luquin, Edward Alexis-Garcia

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002570

Petitioner: Cook, Jeffrey

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Cook, Christina

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002585

Petitioner: Ross, Brittany

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Ross, Aaron Manual

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002593

Petitioner: Justyn, Emily

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Stafford, David Reed

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002620

Petitioner: Henslee, Shannon

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Henslee, Daniel Paul

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002631

Petitioner: Ford, Laura

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Harrison, Christopher Sr.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002640

Petitioner: Saari, Melinda Vienna

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Edgerton, Jamie Allen

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002652

Petitioner: Ostrofe, Sabine L.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Ostrofe, Allen F.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL21-016368

Petitioner: Demara, Sandra

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Demara, Robert

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FLFL0002566

Petitioner: Clifford, Callie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Clifford, Traver

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0000830

Petitioner: Adams, Richard

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Adams, Tanya

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0000903

Petitioner: Schwartz, Patrick

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Schwartz, Lacey B.

Attorney: Self-Represented

This is the third status conference. No continuance or further status conference 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

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

Case No. FL00001398

Petitioner: Tipton, Brittany

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Cook, Jared

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001416

Petitioner: Mantooth, Colleen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Mantooth, Steve

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001723

Petitioner: Hood, Megan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Hood, Brian

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001898

Petitioner: Mallo, Mona-Lisa

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Mallo, Mark

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001915

Petitioner: Griffiths, Melinda Sue

Attorney: Anderson, James

Respondent: Fritz, Daryl Wayne

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001960

Petitioner: Keyser, Kevin

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Keyser, Rebekah

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001961

Petitioner: Vargas. Jeffrey

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Vargas, Molly

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001981

Petitioner: Farrell, Marcia Webster

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Farrell, Douglas Ted

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001982

Petitioner: Brautigam, Nga

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Brautigam, Jared

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001995

Petitioner: Colbert, Danyel

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Bartoli, Vincent

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002005

Petitioner: Rodriguez, Hope

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Rodriguez, David

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002018

Petitioner: Samson, Allison Rivers

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Samson, David Scott

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002029

Petitioner: Sullivan, Shelly

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Morrow, Nico

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002397

Petitioner: Gerhart, Audrey

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Gerhart, Keith

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002417

Petitioner: Peterson, Ingrid

Attorney: Christie, Nancy

Respondent: Carter, Tom

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002433

Petitioner: Rocha, Ashley Anne

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Rocha. Lionel Cardoza II

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
The Court notes that 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 09/05/2025, 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

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

Case No. FL0002475

Petitioner: LaGrou, Melanie

Attorney: Anderson, Sara (Ltd scope)

Respondent: Gardner, Brian

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002498

Petitioner: Guiterrez, Samantha

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Guiterrez, Israel

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002500

Petitioner: Hostetter, Raymond Wayne

Attorney: Klein, w. Gregory

Respondent: Hostetter, Shana Lee Johnson

Attorney: Anderson, James

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002504

Petitioner: Dixon, Jerry

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Dixon, Kaye

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
The Court notes that 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 09/05/2025, 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

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

Case No. FL0002516

Petitioner: Foster, Mark

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Foster, Heather

Attorney: Self-Represented

Status Conference is continued to 09/05/2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/03/2025.
The Court notes that 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 09/05/2025, 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

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

Case No. FL0002517

Petitioner: Greene, Hannah Breeze

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Greene, Adam Abraham

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002518

Petitioner: Thibodeaux, Jennifer

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Thibodeaux, John

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002533

Petitioner: Baker, Typer Robert

Attorney: Bell, Joseph

Respondent: Baker, Sherron Angell

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002535

Petitioner: Kroner, Elisha

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kroner, Adam

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002554

Petitioner: Baker, Megan Rebecca

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Baker, Christian Lee

Attorney: Granger, Jennifer

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002565

Petitioner: Weisman, Zachary D.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Don, Evangelina

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002579

Petitioner: Foster, Jeff

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

Respondent: Johnson, Ellen

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001315

Petitioner: Piaget, Isis

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Roldan, Pedro Merida

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001324

Petitioner: Gardner, Michael A.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Lucero, Sara J.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001765

Petitioner: Kenyon, Alison

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kenyon, Eric

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001804

Petitioner: Langlois, Mary Lou

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Langlois, David Bruce

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001820

Petitioner: Flecksteiner, Annessa

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Flecksteiner, Jeffrey

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001826

Petitioner: LeVeaux, Devon

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Lopez LeVeaux, Antonio

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001874

Petitioner: Holstrom, Richard III

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Holstrom, Ashley

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001905

Petitioner: Alvarado, Jesseca R.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Alvarado, Brian M.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002227

Petitioner: Wright, Dean Norman

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Wright, Carolyn Jill Crist

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002339

Petitioner: Greeley, India

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Greeley, Erik

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002349

Petitioner: Gordon, Gwen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Keyser, Herbert Carter

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002351

Petitioner: Gilchrist, Leanne

Attorney: Carter, Gregory

Respondent: Gilchrist, Timothy

Attorney: Bell, Joseph

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002356

Petitioner: Allen, Adriana

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Allen, Dustin

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002360

Petitioner: Phillips, Morgan

Attorney: Foley, Ryan

Respondent: Phillips, Chandler

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002362

Petitioner: Smith, Andrea

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Smith, Jonathan Jeffrey-Lee

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002367

Petitioner: DeMario, Christopher

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: DeMario, Jamie

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002373

Petitioner: Morales, Skye

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Morales, Jackie

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002378

Petitioner: Dionne, Terii

Attorney: Christie, Nancy

Respondent: Van Der Zalm, Erikl

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002384

Petitioner: Foster, Scott Foster

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Foster, Andrea

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002391

Petitioner: Woodruff, Joseph

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: DeGennaro, Brandy

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002394

Petitioner: Wells, Lisa

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Wells, Ryan

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

Case No. FL0002396

Petitioner: Thibodeau, Jaime

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Lucero, Angel

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002401

Petitioner: Uribe, Cesar J.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kelly, Nicole C.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002404

Petitioner: Kiser, Lissa

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kiser, Richard Jr.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002408

Petitioner: McLees, Ryan

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: McLees, Giedre

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002418

Petitioner: Green Wells, Megan Frances

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Wells, Michael Ryan

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002423

Petitioner: Garcia, Ruth Debora

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Garcia, John

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002425

Petitioner: Dreher, Elizabeth

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Dreher, Douglas Joseph

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002429

Petitioner: Foster, Kathy Ellen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Johnson, Samuel Elan

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002437

Petitioner: Ingle, Robert

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Ingle, Melyssa

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002450

Petitioner: Nunnink, Danny

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Nunnink, Kyle

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002472

Petitioner: Mason, Kasi

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Mason, Timothy

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

*****

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001023

Petitioner: Davis, Jerrett

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Davis, Angel

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001159

Petitioner: Hojnacki, Jennifer

Attorney: Medina, Angelina

Respondent: Taapa, Jonathon

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL00001176

Petitioner: Adachi, Craig

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Adachi, Susan

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001193

Petitioner: Belendez, Rachel

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Belendez, Robert

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001197

Petitioner: Trethewey, Mary E.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Trethewey, Paul M.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001203

Petitioner: Selletti, Stephanie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Selletti, Justin

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001683

Petitioner: Skellenger, Jason

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Skellener, Katherine

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001710

Petitioner: Goodyear, Amelia

Attorney: Walters, Cleat

Respondent: Hippert, Joseph

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001712

Petitioner: Kanani, Babak

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kanani, Miriam

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001763

Petitioner: Menezes, Rebecca

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Menezes, Freddie

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001777

Petitioner: Brace, George

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

Respondent: Brace, Darci

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002282

Petitioner: Peternell, Raymond

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Peternell, Megan

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002297

Petitioner: Nicholson, Cynthia Louise

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Nicholson, Justin Levi

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002312

Petitioner: Turek, Ricki Roberts

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Turek, Daniel

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002314

Petitioner: Coulter, Crystal S.

Attorney: Granger, Jennifer

Respondent: Coulter, Chris G.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

The Court notes that 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 08/01/2025, 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

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

Case No. FL0002324

Petitioner: Entler, Ruby

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Shaw, Luke

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002326

Petitioner: Dugan, Kenneth

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Dugan, Tina Thayer C.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002333

Petitioner: Herzig, James

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Brown, Jessica

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002366

Petitioner: Click, Kevin

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Richardson, Hanamae

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002379

Petitioner: Montgomery, Linda

Attorney: Thompson, Sara

Respondent: Montgomery, Mark

Attorney: Gettys, Candence

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001040

Petitioner: Williams, Kendall

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Williams, RIcky

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001071

Petitioner: VanValkenberg. Angela

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Clark, Gavin

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001076

Petitioner: Duarte, Miriah

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Nicholson, Clint

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001103

Petitioner: Ly, Sarah

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Ly, Cun

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001105

Petitioner: Lerche, Ella

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Ramsay, Mitchell

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001109

Petitioner: Dunmire, Judy

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Dunmire, David

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001140

Petitioner: Whitley, Sierra

Attorney: Klein, W. Gregory

Respondent: Whitley, Thomas

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001313

Petitioner: Carver, Christopher

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Carver, Renee

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001619

Petitioner: Knox, Keenen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Zolling, Kimberly

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001623

Petitioner: Kendrick, Scott

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kendrick, Karen

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001626

Petitioner: Gutierrez Agoado, Christine

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Gutierrez Agoado, Richard

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001629

Petitioner: Driggs, Kristin L.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Driggs, Jeffrey P.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001644

Petitioner: Peeler, Jennifer Jasmine

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Peeler, Jason Daniel

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001651

Petitioner: Ford, Tara

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Tyner, Cath

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001673

Petitioner: Dana, Jayleen

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Dana, Justin

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001692

Petitioner: Tostenson, Briannahlyn

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Tostenson, Michael

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0001702

Petitioner: Avery, Stephanie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Avery, Jerry

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002166

Petitioner: Nesbit, MIchele

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Nesbit, Evan Ryan

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002167

Petitioner: Grose, May

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Gunderson, David Byron

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002173

Petitioner: Nigro, Emily

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Nigro, Vincent

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

The Court notes that 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 06/06/2025, 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

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

Case No. FL0002176

Petitioner: Hinrichs, Sandra

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Salmonson, Karl

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002178

Petitioner: Cyrus, Sonja

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Cyrus, Kalvin

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002190

Petitioner: Plisik, Michael J.

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Plisik, Kristina M.

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002199

Petitioner: Lachman, Lori

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: McAlinn, Shawn

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002204

Petitioner: DeLaughter, Breannah

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: DeLaughter, Cory

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002205

Petitioner: Martinez, Sophie

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Martinez, Anthony James

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002216

Petitioner: Kemmer, Suzanne

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Tackaberry, Michael

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION

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

Case No. FL0002217

Petitioner: Kenney, Amanda

Attorney: Self-Represented

Respondent: Kenney, Jeffrey

Attorney: Self-Represented

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

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

Truckee

Click on any of the links below to view the current tentative rulings in that category, or call (530) 362-4309.

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

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

May 16, 2025 Case Management Conference Tentative Rulings

CL0001977 STATE FARM GENERAL INS. CO. vs. K AND J HANDYMAN SERVICES LLC et al
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned $250 for failing to file appropriate pleadings in support of entry of default as ordered by this Court on March 21, 2025. Additionally, Plaintiff shall show cause why they should not be sanctioned an additional $250 for failing to timely file a case management conference statement. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
CU0000485 Hicks, Jennifer et al v. Sokolow, Sonia et al
No appearances are required. The case is at issue. The Court sets jury trial and related dates as follows:

Trial: January 21, 22 and 23, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. each day, Dept. A

PTC: December 16, 2025, 1:30 p.m., Dept. A

MSC: November 21, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. A (See, LR 4.02)

A pre-trial order shall issue. Unless party(ies) object to this tentative ruling and appear for CMC, parties are deemed to have waived notice of trial and asserted they will waive conflict at the MSC allowing the trial judge to conduct the MSC.

A default prove up hearing for Defendant Sokolow is not being set at this time. The Court notes Plaintiffs have failed to submit default judgment pleadings as they were instructed to do on April 18, 2025. The Court will address the need to set a default prove up hearing once Plaintiffs have properly put the issue before the Court.

CU0001005 WILLIAM ROY FOREST et al vs. THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION et al
No appearances are required. The case is at issue. The Court sets jury trial and related dates as follows:

Trial: January 28, 29 and February 4, 5, 11, 12, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. each day, Dept. A

PTC: December 16, 2025, 1:30 p.m., Dept. A

MSC: December 5, 2025, 9:00 a.m., Dept. A (See, LR 4.02)

Per Stipulation of the parties filed on April 10, 2025, statutory cutoffs shall relate to the trial dates set herein.

CU0001299 Valerie Patterson vs. Truckee Gaming, LLC dba California State Lottery at Gold Ranch
Appearances are required. Neither party complied with the Court’s order issued on May 8, 2025 directing parties to submit either a joint or separate statements re venue. Although there is an assertion this incident occurred in California contained in a CMC Statement filed by Defendant, neither party has provided the Court any information as to why this matter is properly venued in Nevada County. The Court believes this matter is properly venued in Sierra County and intends to transfer venue on its own motion and vacate trial and related dates unless a party can show Nevada County is the proper venue for this matter.
CU0001352 William Vick vs. Rmax Operating, LLC et al
No appearances are required. On the court’s motion, the case management conference is continued to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A to permit pending motions to be adjudicated. At least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference, Cross-Defendants William Vick, RMAX Operating, LLC., 5 Star Roofing and Lincoln & Long Engineering shall file a responsive pleading, or Cross-Complainant Bobby Brown Construction shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendants. Similarly, at least two weeks prior to the continued case management conference, Cross-Defendant Bobby Brown Construction shall file a responsive pleading, or Cross-Complainant 5 Star Roofing, LLC., shall file a request for default (as appropriate) or request for dismissal of defendant.
CU0001453 Craig Allen Davis vs. Asheesh Sen Tilak et al
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Should Plaintiff fail to serve or dismiss defendants in this matter, the Court intends to dismiss the case without prejudice for failing to provide a proof of service, an application for publication (as appropriate) or a request for dismissal for defendants as ordered by this court on December 20, 2024. Additionally, no later than one week prior to the continued case management conference, Plaintiff shall file a declaration setting forth his position as to the scope of the stay pertaining to Defendant All West Coachline’s notice of suggestion of bankruptcy.
CU0001681 RANDY RYAN AGNO vs. James L Gould, IV. Etal et al
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to July 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Department A and sets an order to show cause hearing on the same date and time. Plaintiff shall show cause why he should not be sanctioned $250 or this case dismissed without prejudice for failing to serve and file a proof of service, an application for publication (as appropriate) or a request for dismissal for defendants as ordered by this court on April 28, 2025. The Court notes Plaintiffs have filed documents related to due diligence; however, such do not properly place the issue of a request for order to serve by publication before the Court nor do such pleadings necessarily support a finding of due diligence as to all named defendants. The clerk shall provide notice of the order to show cause.
CU0001853 John L. Dodd vs. Jacob O. Bjeldanes, et al.
No appearances are required. On its own motion, the court continues the case management conference to June 9, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Department A to align with the order to show cause hearing. The Court also admonishes Plaintiff he has failed to file a CMC Statement and such failure can result in the issuance of sanctions.

As of May 15, 2023, the Truckee Branch will no longer be preparing and posting tentative rulings for Status Conference hearings for Family Law matters.

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

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

June 9, 2025 Department A Law and Motion Tentative Rulings

Cleanrite, Inc. v. Cody Sims – Case No. CL0002546

On the Court’s own motion and in light of the Declaration filed by newly retained counsel for Plaintiff, the Court continues the OSC re Dismissal to July 18, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. A. The Court expects service to have been effectuated on the named defendant in this matter prior to said date.

Cleanrite, Inc. v. Seth Warren – Case No. CL0002556

LVNV Funding LLC v. Phuong Perez – Case No. CL0002626

Appearance required by Plaintiff to show cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve the named defendant in this matter. Absent good cause being shown, the Court intends to vacate the trial date and dismiss this matter without prejudice.

Daniel Botwinis v. Patrice Fleming, et al. – Case No. CU0000657
Defendant Coldwell Banker’s pending motions to compel have been withdrawn.

Defendant Coldwell Banker’s unopposed Motion to Deem Truth of Matters In Requests For Admission (Set One) is granted. The matters requested are deemed admitted. Further, Defendant Coldwell Banker is awarded sanctions in the total amount of $885.00 payable by Plaintiff. This sum represents the cost of preparation of the motion and the filing fee. (As no response was filed, no reply needed to be filed nor is any appearance being required by the Court.)

Kylie Kruger v. Piping Rock Equestrian Center, LLC – Case No. CU0001326

The order to show cause re dismissal is dropped. The court received, approved and filed a Request for Dismissal on May 28, 2025. No appearances are required.

William Vick v. Rmax Operating, LLC, et al. – Case No. CU0001352

Defendant Rmax Operating’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement is denied without prejudice. Defendant Lincoln & Long Engineering’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement is likewise denied without prejudice.

CCP § 877.6 states that “[a]ny party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more

parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligators in a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing of good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligators…” Moreover, for a determination of good faith, the settlement needs to be “within reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of comparative liability.” Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499. A good faith determination is only denied if the settlement is “grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability to be.” Torres v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 499, 509. The following factors are considered in determining whether a settlement is within the ballpark of a reasonable settlement range: 1) a rough approximation of the plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settling defendant’s proportionate liability; 2) the amount paid in settlement; 3) recognition that the settling defendant should pay less in settlement than if it were found liable after trial; 4) the settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits, if any; and 5) evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the settlor and plaintiff aimed at making the nonsettling parties pay more than their fair share. Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499.

Here, the court cannot determine that the settlement is “within the ballpark” of a reasonable settlement range as there is no information set forth in either motion as to the total damages sought and each defendant’s proportionate liability.

As such, until additional information is discovered and presented to this court, the motion is premature and denied without prejudice.

Robert Stern v. Emil Caruso, et al. – Case No. CU0001378
Appearances are required for hearing on Defendants Caruso’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial. Upon examination of the Court’s file, it appears that no party posted the required jury fees prior to the first CMC (or at all) pursuant to CCP section 631. Thus, the Court intends to address whether this case should properly be set for a bench trial, rather than a jury trial.

Defendants’ Caruso’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Fourth Cause of Action for Nuisance and Defendant LOP’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Fourth Cause of Action for Nuisance are granted.

A private nuisance is a civil wrong based on disturbance of rights in land. (Civ. Code §§ 3480, 3481.) Elements of an action for private nuisance are: (1) an interference with the use and enjoyment of property; (2) that causes substantial actual damage; (3) and is of such a nature, duration, or amount as to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land. (Mendez v. Rancho Valencia Resort Partners, LLC (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 248, 262-63. Under California law, a landowner has no right to an unobstructed view over adjoining property, and “the law is reluctant to imply such a right.” (Eisen v. Tavangarian (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 626, 635. Also, Damages for diminution in value are not recoverable for continuing nuisances. (Gehr v. Baker Hughes Oil Field Operations, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 660, 663. Thus, Plaintiffs’ nuisance claim fails to state a valid cause of action because the allegations of the interference with Plaintiffs’ scenic views and other “rights” are not based on legally actionable rights as is required under the state nuisance statute. Plaintiffs’ remedy, if any, is contractual which is covered in the First Cause of Action for breach of the parties’ governing documents.

The burden is on the complainant to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully, in order to obtain an order allowing leave to amend. McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 78; Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2010), ¶7:130 (citing Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349). Since Plaintiffs have failed to show the First Amended Complaint can be amended in such a way as to preclude the granting of judgment on the pleadings as to the Fourth Cause of Action, leave to amend is denied.

Eastern Sierra Eng. v. Try Trout and Industrial, LLC – Case No. CU0001508

Appearances required. Notice of Settlement was filed on January 15, 2025 with an indication a request for dismissal would be filed by March 18, 2025. To date, no such request has been presented to the Court. Absent good cause being shown, the Court intends to dismiss the case in its entirety without prejudice.

John L. Dodd v. Jacob O. Bjeldanes, et al. – Case No. CU0001853

No appearances required. The OSC re Dismissal is hereby VACATED in light of all named defendants having now been served. On the Court’s own motion, the Case Management Conference is continued to August 15, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. A to allow Defendants time to file their responsive pleading(s) and to accommodate the parties’ timeline for inspections and settlement negotiations. Updated CMC Statements shall be timely filed prior to the next CMC.

Evanston Insurance v. Mountainside Builders, LLC – Case No. CU0001907

No appearances required. The unopposed motion for change of venue is GRANTED. This case is transferred to the Placer County Superior Court. Plaintiff shall pay the transfer fee to this Court, and each party shall pay any first appearance fee related to their respective appearances in Placer County.

Thatcher Company of Nevada v. Garret Austin Clark – Case No. CU0001951

On the Court’s own motion, the OSC re dismissal is continued to August 15, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. A. Based on the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court anticipates either both Defendants shall be properly served with the Summons and Complaint by that date or a Notice of Settlement and/or a Request for Dismissal will have been filed. No appearance is required.

CU0001681 Randy Ryan Agno, et al. v. James L. Gould, IV, et al.

Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs have failed to serve Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiffs see orders related to properties they do not own. They assert these properties were quitclaimed to them; however, the quitclaim deeds attached to the motion are not executed, recorded or certified.

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

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

June 9, 2025 Truckee Probate Tentative Rulings

1. PR0000159 In Re Brookman, Audrey Joy Lewis

Appearance required for hearing by Counsel for successor guardian and Ms. Eileen Lewis. The court is in receipt of the accounting and has concerns with the disbursements made during Ms. Lewis’ tenure as guardian. The Court intends to discuss the following: Payment of the social security death benefits FBO the minor being made payable directly to the minor’s mother; Having the successor guardian commence a civil action against former guardian for repayment of misappropriated funds during prior guardian’s tenure; How to handle the ownership/benefits of the rental property which was purchased, in part, using minor’s funds.

2. PR0000423 In Re the Matter of: Aaron Freeman

The First Annual Review Hearing is continued on the court’s own motion to December 15, 2025, at 1:30 pm in Dept. A. No appearances are required.

3. PR0000464 In Re the Matter of Amber Ann Walker

Appearance is required for hearing. Guardian has failed to file the GC 251 Annual Confidential Status Report as required by the court.

4. PR0000527 In the Matter of Lundbeck Revocable Trust

The Final Accounting is approved. No appearances are required.

5. PR0000766 In the Matter of Russell Craig Wixon

The Petition to Administer Estate is granted as prayed. Letters shall not issue until signed Duties are filed. No appearances are required.

6. PR0000767 In the Matter of Richard Henry Elespuru

The Petition to Administer Estate is granted as prayed. No appearances are required.

7. PR0000769 In the Matter of Griffin Merritt Seipp

The Petition to Appoint Guardian of the Estate Only is continued on the court’s own motion to July 14, 2025, at 1:30 pm in Dept A. The court’s file is missing the court investigation report. No other procedural defects are noted. No appearances are required.

8. PR0000789 In the Matter of RONALD S. HAYASHI

The Spousal Property Petition is granted as prayed. No appearances are required.

Judicial Branch of California

NOTICE New Support System:

Tentative Rulings

Nevada City

Truckee

Was this helpful?

NOTICE New Support System:

Tentative Rulings

Law & Motion

Probate

Case Management Conferences

Guardianships

Family Law

Case Management Conferences

Family Law

Law and Motion

Probate