July 03, 2025

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 21***

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

PR-22-000335 – ESTATE OF HERNANDEZ, FRANK PAUL – Kelly Paige Hernandez’s Motion to Quash Service - DENIED.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

The procedure to quash the service of a summons set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §§ 418.10 et seq. is inapplicable to the delivery of a notice of petition for appointment of a personal representative or petition for probate. The jurisdiction of the Probate Court is jurisdiction over property (also called “in rem jurisdiction”). Jurisdiction over a defendant, which is obtained in a civil case through service of a summons and complaint, is irrelevant to this type of probate proceeding. (See In re Hensel's Estate (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 429, 433–434 [“The jurisdiction of the superior court sitting in probate … is a jurisdiction in rem. [Citation.] As such it is distinguished from a proceeding in personam in which the court obtains jurisdiction by personal service of notice on the party, or by appearance of the defendant. [Citation.] The Probate Code prescribes the manner of giving notice of the hearing of each of the matters that were before the probate court. [Citation.] When the prescribed procedure is followed, notice that the proceeding is pending and will be had at a specified time and place is deemed to have been given to all interested persons.”].) 

Here, it appears that Petitioner’s counsel acted in good faith when giving notice to Moving Party at the address counsel was able to locate for her. (See 6/20/25 Kern Decl. ¶ 5.) In addition, publication was completed on April 26, 2022, giving constructive notice to the world. (See Kern Decl. ¶ 6; 4/26/22 Proof/Affidavit of Publication [court file].) Furthermore, Moving Party’s attorney in civil proceedings (Case No. CV-22-001527) was given actual notice in May 2023 that a probate case had been opened. (See 6/20/25 Kern Decl. ¶ 10.) And since learning that Moving Party’s address was outdated, Petitioner has updated the information. (See id. ¶ 11.)

Accordingly, Moving Party’s contention that she was not given proper notice of the petition for probate is insufficient to support voiding the order appointing a personal representative or revoking letters. (Cf. Parage v. Couedel (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1042 [“[W]ith regard to probate proceedings, ‘[b]y giving the notice prescribed by the statute, the entire world is called before the court, and the court acquires jurisdiction over all persons for the purpose of determining their rights to any portion of the estate....’ [Citation.] In probate proceedings, ‘one who lives in another state, or in a foreign country, and never in fact received any notice, is still bound if the statutory notice was given. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] Furthermore, in Mannheim v. Superior Court, [(1970) 3 Cal.3d 678, 692], our Supreme Court applied these principles to escheat proceedings, stating that when statutory escheat procedures are followed, ‘[u]nknown heirs who fail to come forward ... cannot later complain of the distribution to other known heirs after it has become final.... [Citations.]’ (See Mannheim v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 692 & fn. 10.)”] [Parallel citation omitted.])
 

As for Petitioner’s request for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2(a), it is DENIED. That chapter of the Code of Civil Procedure concerns the service and quashing of a subpoena, not a summons. (See Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1985 et seq.)

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

***There are no Tentative Rulings in Department 23***

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-24-006108 – ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP LLC vs TINDALL, MARY A MIANO – Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Setting Aside and Vacating its Prior Order of Dismissal and for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation of the Parties – GRANTED, unopposed.

The Court finds that Defendant has defaulted on the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement/ Stipulation for Entry of Judgment herein of September 2024.

Pursuant to the parties’ said Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, based on which the Court entered an Order of Dismissal of this Action without prejudice but retained jurisdiction herein, the dismissal of this action without prejudice is hereby set aside and vacated. Judgement is hereby entered for Plaintiff in the sum of $6,035.00. ( Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6)

CV-24-007633 – HEITZER, MURRAY vs LIU, ANNA YAN – Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance and Request for Sanctions Against Defendants and its Attorney of Record, Jointly and Severally - GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part.

The Court finds that Defendant Liu failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One, propounded on January 10, 2025, and that Plaintiff is entitled to said responses.( Code of Civ. Proc §§ 2017.010, 2031.300).

The Court finds as to Defendant Zen that per Plaintiff’s own pleadings, said discovery was not propounded on Defendant Zen. Therefore, no basis exists for Plaintiff to require Defendant Zen’s compliance herein. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Zen’s compliance herein is therefore unsupported and accordingly,  denied.

Given that Plaintiff’s Counsel engaged in meet and confer with Defendant’s Counsel (though not required), but failed to bring up the issue of Defendant Zen wrongly responding to said Requests for Production which would have forestalled this motion, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied. 

Based solely on the Court’s review of both parties’ supporting exhibits, the Court would be inclined to conclude that Defendant Zen’s discovery responses are Code Compliant. (Code of Civ. Proc. 2031.280)”

Defendant Liu shall provide Code Compliant response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One, within seven  (7) days of the date of this order.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

UD-25-000635 – SHADOW GLEN APARTMENTS LLC vs ROJAS, DEBBIE MORALES – Defendant’s Demurrer – HEARING REQUIRED.