Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Tuesday, November 3, 2026, are:

Re:                Ramos, J Nieves Rodriguez vs. Gonzalez, Adan Chavez

Case No.:   VCU317314

Date:           November 3, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Motion to Enforce Settlement as Judgment

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and enter judgment in the amount of $38,700.

Facts

In this complaint for quiet title, financial elder abuse, cancellation of instrument, fraud and IIED, the parties resolved this matter via a settlement agreement (“Agreement”) executed in July 2026.

The Agreement contemplates a total payment of $75,000 by Defendant to Plaintiff via $10,000 monthly payments commencing March 15, 2026, with a final payment of $15,000 on September 15, 2026.

The Agreement further provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in a proceeding to enforce this settlement.

This matter has not been dismissed.

Plaintiff now seeks to enforce the settlement via entry of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Plaintiff indicates receipt of two $10,000 payments on March 18, 2026 and April 22, 2026, as well as a July 23, 2026 payment of $5,000 and an August 31, 2026 payment of $2,000.

Plaintiff further seeks attorneys’ fees of $4,050, consisting of 9 hours on this motion at the rate of $450 per hour.

In opposition, Defendant notes Defendant has been unable to sell the subject property, seeks additional time, seeks clarification on the attorneys’ fees sought and notes an additional payment of $10,000 via a cashier’s check on October 8, 2026.

Authority and Analysis

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.) Section 664.6 permits the Court to enter a judgment in strict conformance with the terms of a settlement agreement.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6(a) [“the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”]  Further, “if 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.) The Court notes “a party moving for the entry of judgment pursuant to a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 need not establish a breach of contract to support relief under the statute.” (Id. at 1185.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment in the amount of $48,000. However, it appears Defendant has submitted an additional payment of $10,000 via cashier’s check dated October 8, 2026.

As such, the amount remaining appears to be $38,000.

As to the attorneys’ fees sought, “[t]he reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.”  (PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court.” (Id.) Here, the Court will reduce the rate to $350, which is consistent with the rates charged by experienced attorneys in this county.

As to the nine (9) hours sought, the Court notes this motion is relatively straightforward, as the moving party need only establish the validity of a settlement agreement and the amount of the judgment to be entered. As such, the Court will award 2 hours in total.

Therefore, the Court will permit recovery of $700 in attorneys’ fees.

The Court will enter judgment in the amount of $38,700, consisting of the $75,000 in principal, minus $37,000 in payments made, plus $700 in attorneys’ fees.

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:                Lendmark Financial Services, LLC vs. Gutierrez, Krystale Alyssa

Case No.:   VCL324782

Date:           November 3, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion re: Alternative Service via Electronic Mail

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion provided counsel emails the summons and also mails a copy of the summons and complaint via first class mail and posts a copy on the locked gate where service was attempted.

Facts

In this matter filed August 13, 2025, Plaintiff sues Defendant Gutierrez for breach of contract, alleging damages in the amount of $4,178.42.

On October 13, 2025, a registered California process server filed a declaration as to non-service, indicating attempts to serve Defendant at 969 Ridge Creek Estates Way, Dinuba, CA 93618, noting this address was inside of a gated community and noting a lack of entry as to the first four attempts and that the fifth attempt resulted in “knock rang no answer , closing max attempts.”

On March 12, 2026, a registered California process server filed a declaration as to non-service, indicating an additional five (5) attempts, with the second attempt stating “Knock rang no answer” and lack of entry as to the other attempts.

On July 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion for an order approving service of the summons and complaint by electronic means. In support, Plaintiff’s counsel notes confirmation of Defendant’s receipt of mail at the Ridge Creek Estates address noted above from the Post Office, notes the prior service attempts indicated above, notes mailing of the summons and complaint with acknowledgment of receipt and further attempts by a registered process server on June 6, 2026 through June 22, 2026. (Declaration of Yacoub ¶¶5-11.)

Further, counsel states:

“Our office also emailed the Summons and Complaint, with a Proof of Service of Summons and two copies of a Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt to the Defendant's confirmed email address on July 1, 2026. The Defendant's response to the emailed Notice and Acknowledgement is due on or no later than July 21, 2026. To date, there has been no response from the Defendant nor was the email returned to our office as undeliverable.” (Declaration of Yacoub ¶12.)

Further, the declaration states: “Defendant's known email address has been actively used for communication and therefore provides a far greater likelihood of actual notice. Furthermore, Plaintiff has previously communicated with the Defendant through this email address and reasonably believes Defendant continues to access and monitor the account.” (Declaration of Yacoub 10:6-12.)

In the absence of a voluntary submission to the authority of the court, compliance with the statutes governing service of process is essential to establish that court's personal jurisdiction over a defendant." (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439.) "In order to obtain in personam jurisdiction through any form of constructive service there must be strict compliance with the requisite statutory procedures." (Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1407, 1417.)

For service within the state, "[a] summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served." (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.10.)

Alternatively, if the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, a plaintiff may effectuate substitute service "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 . . ., in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address . . ., 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." (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b)(1).) For purposes of such substitute service, reasonable diligence requires attempting personal delivery in good faith on at least three occasions on three different days at three different times. (Code Civ. Proc., 415.20, subd. (b)(2).)

Further, a summons may also be served within the state by mailing the summons and complaint with a notice and acknowledgment of receipt and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30, subd. (a).)

Additionally, "[a] summons may be served by publication if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner specified in this article[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.50, subd. (a).) However, "[i]f a defendant's address is ascertainable, a method of service superior to publication must be employed, because constitutional principles of due process of law, as well as the authorizing statute, require that service by publication be utilized only as a last resort." (Watts v. Crawford (1995) 10 Cal.4th 743, 749, fn. 5.)

Finally, "if a plaintiff, despite exercising reasonable diligence, has been unable to effect service of the summons by any of the methods authorized under this chapter, the court in which the action is pending may, upon motion, direct that summons be served in a manner that is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served, including by electronic mail or other electronic technology, and that proof of such service be made as prescribed by the court." (Code Civ. Proc., § 413.30, subd. (a)(1).) "A plaintiff seeking to establish reasonable diligence under this section shall set forth facts detailing all attempts to serve the defendant by each of the methods prescribed by statute, including facts demonstrating why each method was unsuccessful at every address or location where the defendant is likely to be found.” Code Civ. Proc., § 413.30, subd. (a)(2).)

The Court finds sufficient "reasonable diligence" by "set[ting] forth facts detailing all attempts to serve the defendant by each of the methods prescribed by statute, including facts demonstrating why each method was unsuccessful at every address or location where the defendant is likely to be found." (Code Civ. Proc., § 413.30, subd. (a)(2).

However, the Court does not find a sufficient showing that the email address is active, confirmed or otherwise used to recently communicate with Plaintiff. The declaration, however, is conclusory as to whether Defendant's known email address has been actively used for communication or is otherwise confirmed. That the emails have not been returned as undeliverable does not sufficiently demonstrate that this Defendant actively uses the email address and would therefore receive service of the summons and complaint.

The Court usually sees motions or applications for publication and posting when defendants cannot be served due to a locked gate and has found this would be more reasonably calculated to give actual notice. Given the multiple attempts to serve personally detailed here, the court will allow alternative service if counsel emails the summons and complaint, mails them by first class mail and posts a copy on the locked gate of the property.

As such, the Court grants the motion, provided counsel prepares an order confirming service will be permitted as outlined above and provides a copy of that order when service is completed as noted above.

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:               Frio, Claudia Gomez-Rio vs. Thomas, Emma Jacqueline

Case No.:   VCU328134

Date:          November 3, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Defendants’ Motion to Compel Initial Responses as to (1) Special Interrogatories, Set One, as to Plaintiff and (2) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, as to Plaintiff; (3) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: (1) through (3) To grant the motions and order verified responses due) within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion; to impose sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $350, due within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion; Defendants shall give notice.

Facts Common to (1) through (3)

In this motor vehicle negligence matter, Defendants Emma Thomas, Cymblynne Thomas and Kenneth Thomas, on April 17, 2026, served Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff.

On June 23, 2026, Plaintiff served unverified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One.

Defendants’ counsel, thereafter emailed and sent correspondence seeking verifications, as well as identifying deficiencies in the responses to form interrogatories.

Defendants seek to compel initial responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, as well as $800 total in sanctions. No response to the motions has been received by the Court.

Authority and Analysis

To start, the Court agrees that unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses.  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) When no responses are received, there is no 45-day time limit to file a motion to compel initial responses. (Code Civ. Proc, § 2030.290(a).)

As such, the Court intends to treat all three motions here as motions to compel initial responses.

Further, that the 45-day time limit to bring a motion to compel a further response as to the substantive responses does not commence until verifications are provided.

(1) Compel Initial Responses as to Special Interrogatories

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the first set of special interrogatories, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(a), that Plaintiff provide full and complete verified responses to Defendants’ first set of special interrogatories, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendants shall give notice.

(2) Compel Initial Responses as to Requests for Production

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the first set requests for production of documents, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(a) that Plaintiff provide full and complete verified responses to Defendants’ first set of requests for production of documents, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendants shall give notice.

(3) Compel Further Responses as to Form Interrogatories

As noted above, the Court considers the unverified responses tantamount to no response and therefore no motion to compel a further response is ripe.

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the first set of form interrogatories, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(a), that Plaintiff provide full and complete verified responses to Defendants’ first set of form interrogatories, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendants shall give notice.

Sanctions

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) (Interrogatories) and 2031.300(c) (Requests for Production), the Court will issue sanctions as requested in the reduced amount of $350 as against Plaintiff alone. Sanctions are due within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion. Defendants shall give notice.

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:                 First Technology Federal Credit Union vs. Aguilera Flores, Victor

Case No.:   VCL331615

Date:           November 3, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and deem Admissions Nos. 1 through 22 admitted.

Facts

On or about September 15, 2022, Plaintiff served by mail Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant Victor Aguilera Flores. The discovery was mailed to the address on Defendant’s answer. As of the date of the filing of this motion, no response has been received by Plaintiff. Plaintiff now seeks to deem Admissions Nos. 1 through 22 admitted.

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 states that if a party to whom requests for admissions have been directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of any facts specified in the requests for admissions be deemed admitted. Here, Defendant has failed to serve a timely response and Plaintiff has moved for an order to deem the admissions admitted.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. The facts and allegations alleged in Requests for Admissions Nos. 1 through 22 of Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission shall be deemed admitted.

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:                Ramos, Bryan Gaeta vs. FCA US LLC

Case No.:   VCU334416

Date:           November 3, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion; the order will be deemed effective upon the filing with the court of proof of personal service of the order as indicated herein. To set an Order to Show Cause re: dismissal of the complaint on December 29, 2026, at 8:30 AM in Dept. 2.

Facts

On August 6, 2026, Plaintiff’s Counsel Mani Arabi filed a motion to be relieved as counsel as to Plaintiff Bryan Gaeta Ramos. Plaintiff’s Counsel filed the following with respect to withdrawing:

(1) MC-051 - Notice of Motion and Motion to be Relieved as Counsel;

(2) MC-052 – Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel; and

(3) MC-053 - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Additionally, Plaintiff’s Counsel has filed proof of service of these documents by mail and email.

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 284 provides that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment of final determination, as follows: 1. Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes; [or] 2. Upon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.”

California Rule of Court 3.1362(a) requires that the “notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051).”

As noted above, counsel has complied with California Rule of Court 3.1362(a) by submitting the notice and motion on MC-051 and by directing the notice and motion to all parties.

California Rule of Court 3.1362 (c) further mandates that: “The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1). Specifically, the declaration that Rule 3.1362(c) requires must state that the moving attorney attempted to secure a “Substitution of Attorney” from the client as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1) and that the client refused to so stipulate.

Here, the declaration is properly made on form MC-052, and uses general terms without compromising confidentiality. The declaration indicates attempts to communicate with Plaintiff have been unsuccessful. Although there is no indication that the last communications contained an attempt to obtain a substitution by stipulation, and that Plaintiff has refused, the Court considers the failure of Plaintiff to respond to counsel to relieve counsel of this requirement. If the client won’t respond to any communications from counsel, it would be difficult to obtain a signature on a substitution of attorney form.

Next, service under Rule 3.1362(d) requires personal service, electronic service, or mail and counsel’s declaration must note the service made. Here, service was by mail and email on August 6, 2026 at the last known address of Plaintiff. The declaration of counsel indicates that Plaintiff’s address was confirmed as current by requesting a return receipt.

Finally, Rule 3.1362(e) requires the proposed order be lodged with the Court on MC-053 with the moving papers, specifying all hearing dates scheduled, including date of trial. Plaintiff’s Counsel has complied with this requirement.

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as to Plaintiff. If no one requests oral argument, the Court is prepared to sign the order entitled “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Civil” that the moving party lodged with the Court.  This order will be deemed effective upon the filing with the court of a proof of personal service of the “Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel – Civil” as to Plaintiff.

The Court further directs counsel to attach to the Order an additional notice of the date, time, and Department of this court for any future hearing dates for this case as calendared.

On its own motion the Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: dismissal of the complaint on December 29, 2026, at 8:30 AM in Dept. 2. The Court does not intend to discourage Plaintiff from pursuing this case should he decide to do so, but from counsel’s declaration it appears he may no longer wish to pursue the case. This will allow the Court to address this issue before the matter proceeds to trial.

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:                Haley, Julissa Lenay vs. MWI Veterinary Supply Co.

Case No.:    VCU305462

Date:           November 3, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Hearing re: Final Compliance

Tentative Ruling: The Court previously continued this hearing as settlement administrator’s prior declaration indicated that the check cashing deadline was September 6, 2026 and that on or around October 23, 2026  the necessary paperwork and unclaimed funds would be sent to the California State Controller’s Office - Unclaimed Property Fund.

On October 27, 2026, the settlement administrator filed a further declaration indicating that on October 23, 2026, the paperwork and unclaimed funds in the amount of $64,786.12 were submitted to the State Controller’s office. No appearances are required.

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:                Lira, Armando Melchor vs. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc.

Case No.:   VCU321762

Date:           November 3, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Tentative Ruling: No documents appear filed in connection with this motion. The Court, therefore takes the hearing off calendar.

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:                Lira, Armando Melchor vs. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc.

Case No.:   VCU324256

Date:           November 3, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman

Motion:     Motion for Preliminary Approval of PAGA Settlement

Tentative Ruling: No documents appear filed in connection with this motion. The Court, therefore takes the hearing off calendar.

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:                LVNV Funding LLC vs. Covert, Gregory

Case No.:   PCL327342

Date:           November 3, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:     Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted; Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and deem Admissions Nos. 1 through 14 admitted; to impose sanctions in the amount of $180 against Plaintiff due no later than thirty (30) days from the notice of this ruling; to order Plaintiff to give notice.

Facts

On or about April 28, 2026, Plaintiff served by mail Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant. The discovery was mailed to the address on Defendant’s answer. As of the date of the filing of this motion, no response has been received by Plaintiff. Plaintiff now seeks to deem Admissions Nos. 1 through 14 admitted and sanctions of $810.

Authority and Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 states that if a party to whom requests for admissions have been directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of any facts specified in the requests for admissions be deemed admitted. Here, Defendant has failed to serve a timely response and Plaintiff has moved for an order to deem the admissions admitted.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. The facts and allegations alleged in Requests for Admissions Nos. 1 through 14 of Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission shall be deemed admitted.

As to sanctions, under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.280(c), the Court imposes sanctions in the total amount of $185, consisting of one half hour for this motion at the rate of $250 and the $60 filing fee. Sanctions are due no later than thirty (30) days from the notice of this ruling. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

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:                Nunez Guiza, Citali et al vs. D.E. Equity Group, a California corporation dba The Equity Group et al

Case No.:   PCU336290

Date:           November 3, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:     Defendant D.E. Equity Group’s (1) Demurrer and (2) Motion to Strike

Tentative Ruling: (1) and (2): On October 21, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Therefore, the Court finds the demurrer and motion to strike 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:                HAAG, CHARLES vs. BROSAMER & WALL, INC. et al

Case No.:   PCU311858

Date:           November 3, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:      Defendant Lower Tule River Irrigation District’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.4; Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and compel a further response to subparts (b), (c) and (d) no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing; to deny the request for sanctions.

Facts

This matter involves flooding that occurred March 10, 2023 for which Plaintiff Charles Haag filed a negligence action on August 8, 2024 against Defendants Brosamer & Wall, Inc, Tutor Perini Corporation and Brosamer & Wall/Tutor Perini Joint Venture.

Thereafter, the Court granted Plaintiff Charles Haag’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add causes of action for trespass, nuisance, premises liability, inverse condemnation and to join Lower Tule River Irrigation District, Deer Creek Authority, Tule River Authority as Defendants. Additionally, the amended complaint joined Gina Ruth Haag as a plaintiff and Charles Edward Haag and Gina Ruth Haaag as trustees, as Plaintiffs.

Defendant District received responses from Plaintiffs to form interrogatories on June 5, 2026. On June 16, 2026, Defendant District emailed meet and confer correspondence to Plaintiffs’ counsel concerning, amongst other issues, the response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.4.

No. 12.4 states:    

“Do you or anyone acting on your behalf know of any photographs, videos, or other recordings of anything relating to the INCIDENT? If so, for each recording state: (a) the date it was made; (b) the name and ADDRESS of the recorder; (c) what is depicted in the recording; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has the original or a copy.”

In response, Plaintiffs stated “Responding parties produce herewith 2921 document and videos, the large majority of which are pictures. There are also videos both from January 2023, when no damages occurred and March 10, 2023, when the flooding occurred that caused the damages. All documents and photographs were made between January 1, 2023, and May 31, 2023. They were all taken by Plaintiff.”

Defendant District contends this response is inadequate, as the interrogatory requires that, for each photograph, the subsections must be completed. Additionally, Defendant notes that there are multiple Plaintiffs, and the depositions taken in this case suggest different persons took some of the pictures provided. Further, Defendant seeks $2,500 in sanctions

In opposition, Plaintiffs state they have complied with the requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure as to these form interrogatories and that individual responses for each of the almost 3,000 pictures and videos is not necessary because “Plaintiffs asserted no objection and produced every responsive recording in native format. The date of each recording is embedded in the native file, and the content of each recording is apparent from the recording itself, so LTRID can derive the information sought as readily as Plaintiffs can. (§ 2030.230; West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 420; Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 225.)”

Authority and Analysis

 A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories if the propounding party deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Notice of the motion must be provided within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the parties have agreed in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the requests. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).)

Here, the Court notes that the response to No. 12.4 appears, at least in part, incomplete.

The Court agrees that the information as to subsection (a) can be derived from individual file’s metadata, as the files were produced in native format.

However, there are multiple Plaintiffs named in the matter and therefore the response that “Plaintiff” took the photographs or videos fails to respond to subparts (b) and (d).

As to subpart (c), a depiction of the photograph or video, the Court believes some categorization which describes the contents is required by the Code. The Court will not require each individual photograph or video be labeled with some description, but believe some grouping of photographs or videos by theme, damage, or other reasonable label is required to respond properly to subpart (c).

As such, the Court grants the motion and orders a further response no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this hearing, consistent with the above.

Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as:  making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction. 

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make it unjust to impose sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(d).)

The Court denies the request for sanctions. (Mattco Valley Forge v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1437 [court’s authority to deny sanctions upon mixed results].)

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:                SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY vs. EVERLEVEL HOLDINGS LLC et al

Case No.:   PCU328998

Date:           November 3, 2026

Time:           8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke

Motion:      Defendant Everlevel’s (1) Demurrer and (2) Motion to Strike

Tentative Ruling: (1) To overrule the demurrer; (2) To deny the motion to strike; to order Defendant Everlevel answer the complaint no later than ten (10) days from the date of this hearing.

Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff Southern California Gas Company sues Defendant City of Porterville for inverse condemnation and Defendant Everlevel Holdings for cost of repair under Public Utilities Code section 7592, violation of Government Code  section 4216, et seq., property damage for negligence and vicarious liability, trespass to chattels and damages pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 7951.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant City owned, installed, controlled, maintained, operated, inspected, funded, planned, mapped, surveyed, engineered, constructed, designed, improved, monitored, permitted, and/or operated street improvements, including but not limited to sewer installation and replacement for public use at or near 1250 South Plano Street, Porterville, CA 93257 (hereinafter “Project”). (Complaint ¶14.) Further, that the Project was a public improvement owned, installed, controlled, maintained, operated, inspected, funded, planned, mapped, surveyed, engineered, constructed, designed, improved, monitored, permitted, and/or operated for the purpose of public use. (Complaint ¶15.)

Plaintiff alleges further that Defendant City hired Defendant Everlevel to provide services for the Project, including performing excavation work other specialty professional services, and approved and accepted for public purpose and use. (Complaint ¶16.)

Work performed on the Project “…caused and/or permitted the occurrence of invasion and damage to Plaintiff’s steel main located at or near 1250 South Plano Street, Porterville, CA 93257 (hereinafter, “GAS FACILITY”) which provided gas service to numerous customers.” (Complaint ¶17.)

More specifically, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Everlevel, on or about December 21, 2022 “owned, controlled, maintained, operated, inspected, planned, mapped, surveyed, engineered, constructed, designed, improved, monitored, permitted, excavated and/or operated the PROJECT at or near Plaintiff’s GAS FACILITY.” (Complaint ¶¶22, 30)

Relevant here, as to the fifth cause of action for trespass to chattels, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Everlevel “wrongfully, intentionally and without plaintiff’s permission or consent damaged Plaintiff’s GAS FACILITY when their excavation activities caused damage to GAS FACILITY” and caused damages of $48,905.50 for company and contract labor, materials, and the reasonable cost of repair. (Complaint ¶35, 36.)

As to the sixth cause of action for damages pursuant to Public Utility Code section 7951, Plaintiff seeks treble damages and alleges Defendant Everlevel “had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the existence and presence of the GAS FACILITY at or near the area of their work” and had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the requirements of Government Code Section 4216.” (Complaint ¶¶39, 40.) Further, that Defendant Everlevel “knowingly failed to comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 4216 et seq. when they excavated without obtaining an Underground Service Alert Ticket due to no delineations and failure to re-notify Underground Service Alert.” (Complaint ¶41.) Further, that Defendant Everlevel “performed excavation work outside of the scope of their dig alert ticket and outside of the delineated area” and “knew that pursuant to Government Code §4216, et seq., they were required to excavate only within the delineated area.” (Complaint ¶42.) Further, that Defendant Everlevel thereafter excavated outside of the delineated area thereby damaged the GAS FACILITY. (Complaint ¶42.) 

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Everlevel “had actual and constructive knowledge that the GAS FACILITY would pose a potential hazard if damaged, knew, or reasonably should have known, of the hazard and potential danger to the safety and well being of workers and the public if the GAS FACILITY was to be damaged, broken, pulled, or punctured, and gas was to be released, as gas is combustible and can be hazardous to the safety and well-being of others.” (Complaint ¶¶43, 44. 45)

Despite such knowledge, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Everlevel “ordered, supervised, and/or allowed their agent and/or employee to excavate adjacent to and over the GAS FACILITY without taking proper precautions, thereby, striking pulling, cutting, denting, gouging, puncturing, and damaging the GAS FACILITY causing gas to be released.” (Complaint ¶46.)

As such, Plaintiff alleges these acts were done “…willfully and maliciously and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others by excavating with power equipment adjacent to, above or near to a known active GAS FACILITY that is potentially hazardous to workers or the public if damaged without complying with the statutory requirements of Government Code Section 4216, et seq. and by Defendants knowingly failed to comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 4216 et seq. and proceeded to conduct excavation activities without obtaining an Underground Service Alert Ticket due to no delineations and failure to re-notify Underground Service Alert.” (Complaint ¶47.) Further that Defendant Everlevel “willfully and maliciously caused their power equipment to damage, strike, dent, pull, puncture, and gouge Plaintiff’s underground GAS FACILITY, thereby creating a dangerous condition and public safety hazard.” (Complaint ¶50.)

Defendant Everlevel demurrers to the fifth and sixth causes of action, and moves to strike the references to treble damages.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues the elements of each claim are sufficiently alleged and that it has alleged sufficient facts as to willfulness and malice in support of the treble damages.

Authority and Analysis

(1) Demurrer

The purpose of a demurrer is to test whether a complaint “states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action upon which relief may be based.” (Young v. Gannon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4^th 209, 220.  To state a cause of action, a plaintiff must allege facts to support his or her claims, and it is improper and insufficient for a plaintiff to simply plead general conclusions. (Careau v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 11371, 1390.) The complaint must contain facts sufficient to establish every element of that cause of action, and thus a court should sustain the demurrer if “the defendants negate any essential element of a particular cause of action.” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4^th 857, 879-80)

To determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the trial court may consider all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those that arise by reasonable implication therefrom; it may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusion of fact or law (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4^th 634, 638.)

It is well-settled that all well-pled material facts in the complaint are assumed to be true for the purpose of the demurer.  (C & H Foods v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062) But “doubt in the complaint may be resolved against plaintiff and facts not alleged are presumed not to exist. (Id.)

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no "speaking demurrers"). (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)

Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and the Court sustains them only when a complaint is incomprehensible to the extent that a defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Lickiss v Financial Indus. Regulatory Auth. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.  (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

A demurrer cannot be sustained without leave to amend where it appears that the facts alleged establish a cause of action under any possible legal theory or it is reasonably possible that the plaintiff can amend the complaint to allege any cause of action. (Canton Poultry & Deli, Inc v. Stockwell, Harris, Widom, and Woolverton (2003) 109 Cal.App.4^th 1219, 1226.)

Fifth Cause of Action – Trespass to Chattels

To allege Trespass to Chattel, Plaintiff only need allege the following elements:

1. Intentional interference;

2. with the possession of personal property; and

3. caused injury. (Jamgotchian v. Slender (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1400-1401

Here, Defendant Everlevel argues that Plaintiff has pled, in prior allegations, that Defendant acted negligently, carelessly and recklessly, but, as to this cause of action, Plaintiff alleges wrongful and intentional conduct. Defendant argues the intentional and wrongful allegations are conclusory and that Plaintiff should plead the actual conduct and state of mind.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that it states Defendant Everlevel knowing violated Government Code section 4216 et seq. when it conducted excavation without obtaining a service alert ticket, thereby damaging Plaintiff’s facility. The Court agrees that these allegations are sufficiently specific and allege ultimate facts in support of the elements of this cause of action as to intentional conduct. The Court does not consider such allegations uncertain.

Therefore, the Court overrules the demurrer to the fifth cause of action.

Sixth Cause of Action – Violation of California Public Utilities Code Section 7951

Public Utilities Code Section 7951 says that:

“Any person who willfully and maliciously does any injury to telegraph or telephone or electric power or gas property is liable to the corporation for three times the amount of actual damages sustained thereby, to be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction.”

Defendant argues that the complaint pleads only negligence, does not offer a non-conclusory allegation as to deliberate conduct with malice and that “the knowledge of a risk and deliberate excavation do not necessarily mean a willful and malicious injury to the facility.”

Plaintiff, in response, provides a definition of willfulness, citing to Patarak v. Williams (2001) 91 Cal App 4th 826: “"[a]lthough the term ‘wilfulness' has no "single, uniformly applicable" definition, it refers generally to intentional conduct undertaken with knowledge or consciousness of its probable [detrimental] results...Willful conduct does not require a purpose or specific intent to bring about a [harmful] result.” (Id. at 829.)  Willful conduct, however, “…does require more than negligence or accidental conduct.” (Id.) As to malice, Plaintiff argues that Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 890 defined such as “conscious disregard of the safety of others” as to negligent conduct.  (Id. at 895.)

Here, the Court agrees that the allegations that Defendant knew of the presence of the gas facility, knew of the requirement to obtain the service alert ticket, knew of the requirement to notify or re-notify a service alert, knew they could only excavate in a specific area and thereafter permitted excavation adjacent to and over the gas facility is sufficient willful and malicious conduct, under the definitions above to support this cause of action.

The Court, therefore overrules the demurrer to the sixth cause of action.

(2) Motion to Strike

A party may file a timely notice of a motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) The motion may seek to strike any “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or any part of the pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) Irrelevant allegations include allegations that are not essential to the statement of a claim, allegations that are not pertinent to or supported by the claim and demands for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b), (c).)

Here, Defendant seeks to strike the prayer for treble damages pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 7951. As noted above, section 7951 states:

"Any person who willfully and maliciously does any injury to telegraph or telephone or electric power or gas property is liable to the corporation for three times the amount of actual damages sustained thereby, to be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction." (Pub. Utilities Code, § 7951.)

"Ordinarily, for exemplary damages in a tort action, the plaintiff must look to section 3294 of the Civil Code … However, as we have hereinbefore shown, the Legislature has seen fit to provide for fixed punitive damages to be recoverable by an injured party in special situations," such as "Section 7951 of the Public Utilities Code [which] provides for recovery of three times actual damages …" (Drewry v. Welch (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 159, 174, 176.) Punitive damages are not equivalent to treble damages under Public Utilities Code section 7951.

The Court has noted the definition of willful under Patarak v. Williams (2001) 91 Cal App 4th 826, 829 above, and malice under Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 890, 895 and for the same reasons that the Court overruled the demurrer to the sixth cause of action, the Court denies the motion to strike the reference to treble damages here. Plaintiff has sufficiently pled conduct as to treble damages under section 7951.

Therefore, the Court orders Defendant to answer the complaint no later than ten (10) days from the date of this 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.

Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding - Department 2

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared November 2, 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
VPR054336	In the Matter of Smeltzer, Diana Kay	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Appearance Required	Proposed Order: caption and Item 3 indicate appointment of Administrator, rather than Executor
VPR054334	In the Matter of Undorte, Kathryn	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Appearance Required	Original Will not lodged
VPR054328	In the Matter of Buckman, Douglas Philip	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	Supplemental Statement of Birth Date and DL Number (DE-147S) not filed, TCSC LR, rule 1000(c)(4)
VPR054343	In the Matter of Almanza Gallegos, Alberto	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Recommend for Approval
VPR054332	In the Matter of Duvall, Yvonne Patricia	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Recommend for Approval
VPR054329	In the Matter of the Thomas H. Allen Revocable Trust	Petition to Confirm Trust Asset	Appearance Required	Notice of Hearing not served on all interested persons 30 days prior, Prob C § 851. Objections filed
VPR054333	In the Matter of 2018 Hadley Family Trust	Petition to Confirm Trust Asset	Recommend for Approval
VPR054001	In the Matter of Douma, Darlene Fay	Petition for Preliminary Distribution	Appearance Required	Petition: Exhibits B – C not attached

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters:   Thursday, October 29, 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
PPR053821	In the Matter of Ruthenbeck, Marc	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance required	Attachment to the Petition, Exhibit B is illegible There is a discrepancy between the appraisal/inventory amount and what was reported in the trust account. There is no attachment for the Decedent’s Cash Asset showing this was placed into the blocked Attorney Client Trust Account.
PPR054033	In the Matter of Frazier, Joan	Final Distribution Hearing		Matter appears to be in order
PPR054202	In the Matter of Bjorkman, Douglas	Letters of Administration	Appearance required	Caption- SELECTED Authorization to Administer Under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. LIMITED AUTHORITY Selection made at 2c to act with FULL & LIMITED authority under IEAE Petitioner claims priority in Attachment 3g(2)(a) – NO ATTACHMENT explaining priority NOT FILED - Waiver of Bond all heirs NOT FILED - Notice of Petition to Administer served on all parties 15 days prior, Prob C 8110 NOT FILED - Supplemental Statement of Birth Date and DL Number NOT FILED - Proof of Publication NO Order submitted
PPR054331	In the Matter of Rutledge, Clayton Reynold	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance required	The Petition was filed without the required DE‑300 attachment as required by Probate Code section 13152(e). It appears that the Order references an attachment concerning the distribution in the related case, and that attachment addresses distribution pursuant to an agreement described in a Declaration. However, in this case, there is no comparable filing or documentation regarding such an arrangement. Please clarify or reconcile this discrepancy
PPR054330	In the Matter of Rutledge, Joann Gail	Determine Succession to Primary Residence	Appearance required	The Petition was filed without the required DE‑300 attachment as required by Probate Code section 13152(e).
PPR054338	In the Matter of Ureno Gamboa, Francisca	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance required	Notice of Hearing not served on proposed conservatee at least 5 court days prior, unless the court for good cause otherwise  orders, Prob C §2250(e)
PPR054364	In RE: The Suarez Family Trust Dated August 9, 2010	Petition Hearing	Appearance required	Notice of Hearing was not timely served – service was conducted by mail on 9/30/26, missing the deadline by one day for the required 30 days' notice prior to hearing set for this date, 10/30/26, Prob C § 851(b)

South County Justice Center & County Civic Center- Visalia

GUARDIANSHIP CASES

         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
11/2/26 8:30 AM	Department  9	VPR054149	In the Matter of S.S.	No procedural issues to address