Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Monday, November 16, 2026, are:

Re:                Uqdah, Priscilla vs. Friends of Allensworth, a California Public Benefit Corporation

Case No.:   VCU306537 

Date:           November 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Request for Judicially Supervised Dissolution under Corporations Code section 6614

Tentative Ruling:  The “petition” and “motion” of petitioner/moving party are denied.

One of the central claims at issue in this litigation is that of objecting party Ann Williams, framed in the now third amended version of the underlying complaint in this matter, “for determination of validity of election of directors and for order for new election of directors” under Corporations Code sections 5515 and 5617. 

This claim has the unique and exclusive distinction, the court notes, of being the only claim of any party whose history can be traced to this litigation’s commencement way back in late February of 2024.  What’s more, as it stands today, the principal dispute in this case continues to concern the parties’ conflicting assertions as to who is authorized to govern the Friends of Allensworth corporation. 

In a gambit apparently intended to shortcut past this centrally disputed matter, though, a party to this litigation that identifies itself as “Friends of Allensworth”—or, more accurately, those who purport to act in that capacity; whose authority to so act is necessarily encapsulated by the central governance dispute framed in this litigation—filed a petition for judicial supervision of a purported voluntary winding up of the Friends of Allensworth California nonprofit public benefit corporation under Corporations Code section 6614.

Section 6614 permits a superior court to take jurisdiction over a voluntary corporate dissolution, “[i]f [the] corporation is in the process of voluntary winding up.”  The superior court may so proceed “upon the petition of” amongst others, “the corporation.” (Ibid.) 

The petitioning party also concurrently filed a “motion” for the same relief sought in its petition, but, section 6614, the court notes, does not provide for relief by way of a motion. 

According to a declaration of an individual who purports to now serve as president of Friends of Allensworth, Tamuri Richardson, submitted by the petitioning party (or, rather, those behind it), “[a]t a duly held meeting on June 26, 2026 … FOA’s board of directors approved the voluntary winding up and dissolution of FOA.”

The constitution of FOA’s duly acting board, though, obviously is a principal matter in dispute in this litigation, and, moreover, goes to the very heart of the matter that the longest standing claim in this case, first noted above, seeks to determine. 

The court declines to short circuit adjudication of the principal and longest standing claim in this case by way of petitioner/moving party’s motion under section 6614 because section 6614, as noted, does not authorize any form of relief by way of motion. 

The court further declines to permit a collateral, duplicative litigation of this claim by way of a “petition” under section 6614.  Doing so would in no way, despite moving/petitioning party’s suggestion to the contrary, obviate the necessity of a trial on the matter of Friends of Allensworth’s governance.  It would, rather, require the court to make the determination twice, both in trial of the standing claim framed in the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint, and, in trial of the duplicative jurisdictional issue under section 6614 of whether Friends of Allensworth is, indeed, “in the process of voluntary winding up.”

The court does believe there may be some wisdom, though, in separately trying, first, the issue of the identity of those with authority to govern the Friends of Allensworth, which—this court optimistically hopes—could potentially result in the parties being able to finally voluntarily resolve the other litigated issues that have since branched off that central dispute, thereby bringing this seemingly interminable litigation to a close.   Section 6614 is not, however, the avenue for accomplishing this.

Accordingly, the “motion” and “petition” are denied. 

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                 Parente, Daniel Patrick vs. BSmith Protection Services Inc

Case No.:   VCU327032

Date:           November 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.          9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:    Motion to Enforce Settlement as Judgment

Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion

Facts and Analysis

Plaintiff brings a class action complaint for a number of wage and hour claims, and violation of the unfair competition law. The Court notes no PAGA claim is asserted in the complaint. Plaintiff names Defendants BSmith Protection Services, Inc. and Brandon Smith as Defendants.

Plaintiff and Defendants purportedly settled this matter by negotiating “an individual resolution of this action for a total settlement payment of $20,000.00.” The purported agreement includes a general release, release of unknown claims, a dismissal of PAGA claims in exchange for a waiver of costs and “Within 10 days of receiving the Payment, Plaintiff will file a request for dismissal with prejudice as to all claims and causes of action in the Complaint, except as to the PAGA claim, which will be dismissed without prejudice.”

Section 664.6 (a) states: 

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

“Section 664.6 permits the trial court judge to enter judgment on a settlement agreement without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4^th 1355, 1360) “[I]f the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”  (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.)

Here, however, the Court cannot find a valid settlement agreement has been reached in this class action matter.

California Rule of Court, rule 3.769 notes “A settlement or compromise of an entire class action, or of a cause of action in a class action, or as to a party, requires the approval of the court after hearing.” The Court acts both as a neutral decision maker and as a guardian of the absent class members. (See In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig. (3rd Cir., 2004) 391 F.3d 516, 534 (“…the district court acts as a fiduciary who must serve as a guardian of the rights of absent class members.”) Absent approval, the Court cannot fulfill its role as guardian in class action matters. Here, no such approval, preliminary or final has been granted.

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the class claims, court approval is likewise required under California Rule of Court, rule 3.770. No such approval has been granted. Moreover, no amended complaint has been filed asserting only individual claims.

The Court, therefore, finds no valid settlement agreement has been entered into and cannot enforce such as a judgment.

The Court, therefore, denies the motion.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                 Zamudio Hernandez, Jose L vs. EAN Holdings, LLC

Case No.:    VCU332298

Date:            November 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Defendant Gallegos’ Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Requests for Production as to Plaintiff; Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: This matter is continued to January 11, 2027, 8:30 am, Dept. 9.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                 Velocity Investments, LLC vs. Haines, Thomas

Case No.:    VCL332636

Date:            November 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and order the matter transferred upon Plaintiff’s submission of the transfer fees.

Facts and Analysis

Plaintiff filed this breach of contract suit in Tulare County, alleging “Defendant is an individual who currently resides within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court. Therefore, this Court is the proper Court for adjudication of this matter.” (Complaint ¶11.)

On September 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion to transfer venue, stating “Plaintiff now believes Defendant’s new residence lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of Kings Superior Court of Justice, County of Kings, State of California” and seeking to transfer the matter to Kings County.

On timely motion, the court must order a transfer of venue "when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court." (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 396b, 397(a).) A motion to transfer venue on grounds the designated court is not proper must file and serve the motion before or at the time of filing an answer, demurer, or motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 396b.) "Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made." (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482; Haurat v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 ["Venue is determined on the basis of the complaint as it stands at the time the motion to change is made, and the plaintiff is not permitted to make a subsequent election of theories by proposed amendments thereto"].)

Plaintiff indicates venue is not proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395 as the proper venue lies in Kings County.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to pay all applicable fees before transfer is made to Kings County. (Code Civ. Proc., § 399, subd. (a).) Such fees shall be paid and the action shall be transferred within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Such fees include payment of the transfer fee in the sum of $50.00 payable to the Tulare County Superior Court and the submission of a separate check for the filing fee in the sum of $225.00 payable to Kings Superior Court, within 30 days.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Talbot, Barbara E

Case No.:   VCL333379

Date:           November 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling: This matter is continued to January 25, 2027, 8:30 am, Dept. 9.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                 Mendoza, Jose vs. Pavitar Singh Sond, Trustee of the Pavitar Singh Sond and Surinder Kaur Living Trust

Case No.:   VCU333747

Date:            November 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 32; Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: There are no tentative rulings on the merits for these motions. The parties are directed to meaningfully meet and confer before the hearing of these motions to resolve the discovery disputes identified in the moving and opposition papers for these discovery motions. If unable to resolve, counsel are directed to personally appear for the hearing on these discovery motions. No CourtCall or Zoom appearances will be permitted if the parties are unable to resolve this matter prior to the scheduled hearing.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                 Mariner Finance, LLC vs. Martinez, Alfonso F JR

Case No.:   VCL334250

Date:            November 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

Tentative Ruling: The parties appear to have entered into a stipulation resolving this matter. Therefore, this motion appears moot.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                McGrath, Wendy L vs. Johnson, Erin

Case No.:   VCU329518

Date:           November 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion re: Approval of Alternative Deposition Recording

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion

Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff seeks to depose Defendant Johnson.

Via this motion, Plaintiff seeks court approval of an alternative to certified shorthand reporter transcription of the deposition due to its cost. Plaintiff indicates “Combs [Reporting] stated that its deposit is $2,000 per day and that the amount would likely range between approximately $1,500 and $2,500 because the number of transcript and exhibit pages cannot be determined in advance.” (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶10.) Plaintiff notes that a fee waiver has been granted in this matter, but that fee waiver does not cover the costs. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶12.) Plaintiff states she cannot afford the $2,000 per day deposit. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶20)

Plaintiff further indicates other efforts to obtain assistance through the Court Reporters Board of California's Transcript Reimbursement Fund, but that a deposit would be required prior to any potential reimbursement. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶¶13-18.)

Plaintiff proposes to:

…preserve a complete audiovisual record of the deposition. The deposition would be conducted remotely through Zoom or comparable videoconferencing technology and would be supervised by an independent deposition officer authorized under California law to administer the required oath or affirmation and qualified to act as a deposition officer.

23. The deponent would be placed under oath or affirmation before examination begins. The audiovisual recording would preserve the entire examination and all objections made on the record.

24. The original audiovisual recording would be preserved without alteration, exhibits would be identified and preserved with the deposition materials, and copies of the recording would be made available as required by applicable law.

25. I am prepared to follow the procedures applicable to audiovisual deposition recording, review and changes by the deponent, certification of the record, preservation of exhibits and testimony, and any additional safeguards ordered by the Court.” (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶¶22-25.)

Further, Plaintiff states “My purpose in requesting this procedure is to permit necessary oral deposition discovery to proceed despite the advance financial barrier presented by conventional stenographic reporting while preserving the oath, a complete record of the testimony and objections, the parties' examination and objection rights, preservation of exhibits and testimony, and the procedures governing subsequent use of deposition testimony.” (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶27.)

In opposition, Defendant states:

“Defendant does not oppose the limited relief requested: that Plaintiff may conduct oral depositions in this action remotely by Zoom or comparable videoconferencing technology, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.310 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1010, and that the testimony and objections may be recorded audiovisually without contemporaneous stenographic reporting under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.330(b), subject to the safeguards in the proposed order and applicable law.

This non-opposition is limited to the remote format and alternative recording method described above. It does not waive objections to the sufficiency or timing of a particular deposition notice, a proposed deposition date or scope, or any failure to comply with applicable statutory procedures, including Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.220, 2025.310, 2025.320, 2025.340, 2025.530, and 2025.540. All privileges, examination rights, and objections concerning admissibility or later use remain reserved.”

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.330(b) states:

“(b) Unless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise, the testimony, as well as any stated objections, shall be taken stenographically. If taken stenographically, it shall be by a person certified pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 8020) of Chapter 13 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.”

Here, there is now an apparent agreement that the testimony may be taken recorded audiovisually without contemporaneous stenographic reporting

Therefore, the Court grants the motion that the testimony and objections may be recorded audiovisually without contemporaneous stenographic reporting under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.330(b), subject to the safeguards in the proposed order and applicable law.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                 McGrath, Wendy L vs. Lopez, Autumn

Case No.:   VCU329524

Date:           November 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion re: Approval of Alternative Deposition Recording

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion

Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff seeks to depose Defendant Lopez.

Via this motion, Plaintiff seeks court approval of an alternative to certified shorthand reporter transcription of the deposition due to its cost. Plaintiff indicates “Combs [Reporting] stated that its deposit is $2,000 per day and that the amount would likely range between approximately $1,500 and $2,500 because the number of transcript and exhibit pages cannot be determined in advance.” (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶8.) Plaintiff notes that a fee waiver has been granted in this matter, but that fee waiver does not cover the costs. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶10.) Plaintiff states she cannot afford the $2,000 per day deposit. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶18)

Plaintiff further indicates other efforts to obtain assistance through the Court Reporters Board of California's Transcript Reimbursement Fund, but that a deposit would be required prior to any potential reimbursement. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶¶11-16.)

Plaintiff proposes to:

…preserve a complete audiovisual record of the deposition. The deposition would be conducted remotely through Zoom or comparable videoconferencing technology and would be supervised by an independent deposition officer authorized under California law to administer the required oath or affirmation and qualified to act as a deposition officer.

21. The deponent would be placed under oath or affirmation before examination begins. The audiovisual recording would preserve the entire examination and all objections made on the record.

22. The original audiovisual recording would be preserved without alteration, exhibits would be identified and preserved with the deposition materials, and copies of the recording would be made available as required by applicable law.

23. I am prepared to follow the procedures applicable to audiovisual deposition recording, review and changes by the deponent, certification of the record, preservation of exhibits and testimony, and any additional safeguards ordered by the Court.” (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶¶20-23.)

Further, Plaintiff states “My purpose in requesting this procedure is to permit necessary oral deposition discovery to proceed despite the advance financial barrier presented by conventional stenographic reporting while preserving the oath, a complete record of the testimony and objections, the parties' examination and objection rights, preservation of exhibits and testimony, and the procedures governing subsequent use of deposition testimony.” (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶25.)

In opposition, Defendant states:

“Defendant does not oppose the limited relief requested: that Plaintiff may conduct oral depositions in this action remotely by Zoom or comparable videoconferencing technology, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.310 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1010, and that the testimony and objections may be recorded audiovisually without contemporaneous stenographic reporting under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.330(b), subject to the safeguards in the proposed order and applicable law.

This non-opposition is limited to the remote format and alternative recording method described above. It does not waive objections to the sufficiency or timing of a particular deposition notice, a proposed deposition date or scope, or any failure to comply with applicable statutory procedures, including Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.220, 2025.310, 2025.320, 2025.340, 2025.530, and 2025.540. All privileges, examination rights, and objections concerning admissibility or later use remain reserved.”

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.330(b) states:

“(b) Unless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise, the testimony, as well as any stated objections, shall be taken stenographically. If taken stenographically, it shall be by a person certified pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 8020) of Chapter 13 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.”

Here, there is now an apparent agreement that the testimony may be taken recorded audiovisually without contemporaneous stenographic reporting.

Therefore, the Court grants the motion that the testimony and objections may be recorded audiovisually without contemporaneous stenographic reporting under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.330(b), subject to the safeguards in the proposed order and applicable law.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re:                E.W. Merrit Farms vs. Pixley Irrigation District, et al

Case No.:  VCU332014

Date:           November 16, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide

Motion:      Demurrer to Amended Complaint

Tentative Ruling: This demurrer is continued to Tuesday, November 24, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept. 9. The Court will post a tentative ruling on the demurrer.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding - Department 2

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared November 16, 2026, that allow for posting:

Status:  Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc.

Case Number	Case Name	Type	Status	Comments
VPR054353	In the Matter of Abarca Valencia, Juan Carlos	Letters of Administration	Recommended for Approval
VPR054340	In the Matter of Gonzalez, Irasema	Letters of Administration	Recommended for Approval
VPR054309	In the Matter of Schneider, James Joseph	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Recommended for Approval
VPR054335	In the Matter of Jordan, William Russell	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Appearance Required	1. Petition Item 5a (3) or (4) omitted: re any surviving registered domestic partner. 2. Duties & Liabilities of Personal Representatives (DE-147) not filed. 3. Original will not lodged
VPR054352	In the Matter of Bridges, John H	Spousal Property Hearing	Appearance Required	1. Petition Attachment 7: the facts upon which the petitioner bases the allegation that the property is property passing to the surviving spouse necessary to establish the community property claim omitted, Prob C § 13651(a)(3),(4). 2. Petition Item 9: relationships of parties to decedent omitted. 3. Notice of Hearing not served on all parties 15 days prior, Prob C § 13655
VPR054382	In the Matter of Garcia Castaneda, Adolfo	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance Required	Petition Item 11(2) omitted: facts showing that the real property was decedent’s primary residence in California, Prob C § 13152(a)(3).
VPR054346	In the Matter of the Russell R. and Madge M. Ezell Family Trust	Petition to Confirm Trust Asset	Recommended for Approval
VPR053142	In the Matter of Jensen, Paul Michael	Attorney Fee Allowance Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR054311	In the Matter of Kane, Chase John	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR054266	In the Matter of Pimentel, Mark C	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR054095	In the Matter of Aguayo, Armando	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Documents in order

PROBATE ADMINISTRATION 

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters:   Thursday,  November 12, 2026

                                         

Status:  Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc.

PLEASE NOTE:  All attempts possible are made to have the information on this page entered by 3:00 p.m. the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.  For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at (559) 730-5000 x 1302 or 1430

Case Number	Case Name	Type	Status	Comments
PPR054392	In the Matter of Shishido, Graycie Noriko	Letters of Administration	Appearance required	Orders and Letters (DE-150/DE-140) not lodged. Pursuant to Probate Code §8571, notwithstanding a waiver of bond, the court in its discretion may require the nonresident of California personal representative to give a bond.
PPR054386	In the Matter of Serrato, Mario	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance required	A written settlement agreement/consents not filed for the buyout provision. Continued jurisdiction to enforce is beyond the scope of a summary administration.
PPR054377	In the Matter of Ramos Bedolla, Fernando Angel	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance required	Matter appears to be in order

South County Justice Center & County Civic Center- Visalia

PROBATE GUARDIANSHIP 

         SCJC- Honorable Russell Burke Presiding

         Visalia- Honorable Bret D. Hillman; Honorable Nathan D. Ide; Honorable David C. Mathias

Examiner notes for probate GUARDIANSHIP matters calendared AS STATED BELOW that allow for posting:

PLEASE NOTE:  All attempts possible are made to have the information on this page entered by 3:00 p.m. the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.  For further information regarding a probate matter listed below you may contact the Probate Document Examiner at (559) 730-5000 x 1302.

Hearing Date & Time	Department Number	Case Number	Case Name	Comments
11/16/2026 08:30 AM	Department 2	VPR054402	IMO R.E.G.	REQUIRED TO BE FILED- Guardianship Questionnaire                    PETITION ITEM #1 (c) – no selection made regarding BOND PETITION NOT DATED NEED Notice of Hearing (GC-020) to be filed with proof of service indicating Petition for Appointment was served pursuant to Probate Code §1511 PROPOSED GUARDIAN needs to attend the Guardianship Orientation & DOJ background record check