Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED rior Court of California county of Sacramento 08/29/2024 Peter L. Cianchetta, SB #220971 By M. Dysle Deputy CIANCHETTA & ASSOCIATES 3125 Dwight Road, Suite 300 Elk Grove, CA 95758 ‘Telephone: 916-685-7878 Facsimile: 916-685-3662 Attorney for Petitioner, Laura Scarrone SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO In Re: Case No.: 10 THE SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST PETITION TO REMOVE KAREN 11 DATED JUNE 6, 1989 TOMASINI, TO CONFIRM RESIGNATION OF LAURA SCARRONE, AND APPOINT 12 FIDUCIARY AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE 13 Hearing date: 10/15/2024 14 Time: 1:30pmcp S Dept: 12920 15Oxoe 16 Petitioner, Laura Scarrone, alleges: 17 18 1. ROSEMARIE A. SCARRONE and ARTHUR SCARRONE established the THE 19 SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 6, 1989 (“THE TRUST”), on June 6, 1989. A Copy of the Trust is attached as Exhibit A. 20 2. The 7th Amendment to THE TRUST is the most recent and controlling amendment 21 3. ROSEMARIE A. SCARRONE passed on January 10, 2022. A copy of the 7th 22 Amendment to THE TRUST is attached as Exhibit B. 23 4. Laura Scarrone and Karen Tomasini, the Decedent’s daughters, both became successor 24 trustees on January 10, 2022. 25 5. Petitioner, Laura Scarrone is a beneficiary of THE TRUST, and is currently acting as co- 26 successor trustee with Karen Tomasini. 27 28 PAGE 16. The successor trustees have not been able to efficiently move forward with the administration of THE TRUST. It has become apparent that the two presently acting trustees, Laura Scarrone, and Karen Tomasini, are unable to cooperate and agree upon decisions regarding trust assets. 7. Laura Scarrone has suggested that both her and Karen Tomasini be removed as trustees, and an independent fiduciary be appointed in their stead. 8. Upon the Court’s approval, Karen Tomasini’s removal, and appointment of an independent fiduciary, Laura Scarrone will voluntarily step down as successor trustee. 9. Laura Scarrone has tried to take action to administer the trust, but she has been blocked 10 at every step by Karen Tomasini. Each trustee must agree on any trust actions, and it is clear that 11 their relationship between them has broken down to the point where any agreement is highly 12 unlikely. oogeeR 13ao 10. THE TRUST states that in the event that Karen Tomasini and Laura Scarrone cannot actBtgu 14 as trustees, then Jeff Scarrone shall become the sole trustee of THE TRUST.cp S20 15 11. Laura Scarrone objects to Jeff Scarrone acting as sole trustee and does not believe thatOxoe 16 allowing Jeff Scarrone to be the sole trustee is in the best interests of THE TRUST or its 17 beneficiaries. 18 12. Before filing this motion, Laura Scarrone, by and through her attorney of record, has 19 attempted to meet and confer with Jeff Scarrone’s attorney, Benjamin Eagleton. Peter Cianchetta 20 sent Mr. Eagleton several emails, and mailed a letter to Mr. Eagleton’s office, all of which have 21 gone unanswered. 22 13. In those communications with Mr. Eagleton, Laura Scarrone proposed that all parties 23 stipulate to Karen Tomasini and Laura Scarrone’s removal as trustee, and a fiduciary be appointed. 24 14. Laura Scarrone proposes that Analisa Alvarado be appoinded as the sole trustee of THE 25 TRUST. 26 15. Further delays are detrimental to the trust because the lack of agreement between the trustees precludes any administration of the trust. Trust funds have been depleted maintaining 27 28 PAGE 27203 3rd Avenue, Tahoma, CA and 2932 Kadema Drive, Sacramento, CA (together, the “TRUST PROPERTIES”). 16. Both Laura Scarrone and Karen Tomasini claim they are entitled to reimbursem*nt from THE TRUST for their own personal funds being used to maintain the TRUST PROPERTIES. It is foreseeable that each of them will incur further personal expenditures in order to maintain the TRUST PROPERTIES, should there by further delay in administration of THE TRUST. 17. It is in the best interest of THE TRUST and its beneficiaries to appoint a neutral third party fiduciary as the successor trustee, and both Laura Scarrone and Karen Tomasini be removed. 18. By failing to distribute the Trust according to terms, harm has come to all of the 10 beneficiaries. The TRUST PROPERTIES have significantly declined in value since January 2022, 11 ‘when Laura Scarrone and Karen Tomasini were appointed as successor trustees. 12 19. Petitioner requests the court to remove Karen Tomasini as Trustee pursuant to its oogeeR 13ao authority under Probate Code §15642 because Karen Tomasini has breached her duty to theBtgu 14 beneficiaries. Laura Scarrone has volunteered to step down as trustee upon the Court’s removal ofcp S20 15 Karen Tomasini.Oxoe 16 20. Petitioner contends that relationships between the many beneficiaries have become 17 acrimonious, and reaching agreements with so many people involved is extremely difficult. The 18 result is that a family member serving as Trustee is not likely to resolve the conflicts or result in 19 timely distribution. Thus, the Petitioner requests that a professional fiduciary be appointed as 20 Successor Trustee. 21 /i/ 22 /i/ 23 /i/ 24 /i/ 25 /i/ 26 /i/ 27 28 PAGE 3WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays: 1. The Court remove Karen Tomasini as Trustee of the SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 6, 1989 and appoint a professional fiduciary as Successor Trustee; and 4 2. The Court confirm the resignation of Laura Scarrone as Trustee of the SCARRONE 5 FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 6, 1989; and 3. The Court make all further and proper orders it deems fit. Quryioune Date: 8/22/2024 Laura Scarrone, Petitioner 10 CZE Date: 8/23/2024 11 Peter Cianchetta, Attorney for Petitioner 127 oo gisge 13OwstSO 14op S20 15Oxoa 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PAGE 4VERIFICATION I, Laura Scarrone, declare that: Ihave read the foregoing petition and know its contents. It is true of my own knowledge except as to matters that are stated in it on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. hungdioun 10 Date: 8/22/2024 Laura Scarrone, Petitioner 11 127 oo gisge 13OwstSO 14op S20 15Oxoa 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PAGE 5EXHIBITAORIGINAL SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST A REVOCABLE (INTER VIVOS) TRUST DATED JUNE 6, 1989 iia WITH POUR OVER WILLS fs PREPARED BY DENNIS W. KROEKER, ATTORNEY OFFICES: 313A RAILROAD AVENUE P.O. BOX 208 NEVADA CITY, CALIFORNIA (916) 272-7227 1600 SACRAMENTO INN WAY, SUITE 102 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA ” (916) 929-3291SeminTABLE OF CONTENTSEXHIBIT A - TRUST ESTATE EXHIBIT A(1) - COMMUNITY PROPERTY ASSETS . EXHIBIT A(2) - SEPARATE PROPERTY ASSETS EXHIBIT A(3) - INTENTIONAL EXCLUSIONS FROM TRUSTEXHIBIT B Be ee eee ee eee ee eee ee eee eee eee eee eee tenet ene 10 TRUSTEES ee eee ee eee eee ee ee eee e eee eenes 10EXHIBIT C 12 DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AND PRINCIPAL 12EXHIBIT D 7 ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO EXHIBITS aEXHIBIT E 22 ATTORNEY'S NOTE . . 22 DECLARATION OF TRUST SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST 23 DATE, NAME, AND PURPOSE OF THIS TRUST 23 IDENTITY OF TRUSTOR 23 DESIGNATION OF TRUSTEE 23 CONVEYANCE TO TRUSTEE 23 DISTRIBUTION AT DEATH 24 PROPERTY TO RETAIN ITS CHARACTER 24 SIGNATURES FOR TRANSFER 24 MODIFICATION OF TRUST 24SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 2 of 39 Pages9 REVOCATION OF TRUST 2410 RETAIN RESIDENCE 2511 NET INCOME TO TRUSTOR 2512 INCAPACITY OF HUSBAND OR WIFE 2513 TRUSTEE IS REPLACED 2514 SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE’S NONLIABILITY 2515 INVASION OF TRUST ESTATE 2616 PAYMENT OF TRUSTOR’S FUNERAL EXPENSES AND DEATH TAXES .... 2617 DEFERRAL OF DIVISION OR DISTRIBUTION OF TRUST ASSETS 2618 RETAIN INVESTMENTS OF TRUSTOR 2619 UNDISTRIBUTED INCOME ON TERMINATION OF BENEFICIAL INTEREST 2720 SPENDTHRIFT PROVISION 2721 PAYMENTS TO INCOMPETENT 2722 DISTRIBUTION IN KIND OR IN CASH 2723 PERPETUITIES SAVINGS CLAUSE 2824 DEFINITION OF ISSUE AND CHILDREN 2825 DISCLAIMERS 2826 PAYMENTS TO BENEFICIARY UNDER DISABILITY OR TO MINOR 2827 APPLICABLE LAW 2828 INVALIDITY OF ANY PROVISION 29TRUSTORS’ SIGNATURES 29SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 3 of 39 PagesCERTIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY OF POWERS OF TRUSTEE BY ATTORNEY 30 DECLARATION OF TRUST ADDENDUM SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST TRUSTEE’S POWERS ADDENDUM 31 REASON FOR ADDENDUM 31 TRUSTEE 31 DATE OF TRUST 31 NAME OF TRUST AND TITLE HOLDING 31 SIGNATURES 32 TRUSTEE’S POWERS INTRODUCTION 32 BROAD INVESTMENT POWERS, DIVERSIFICATION NOT REQUIRED 32 POWER TO RETAIN PROPERTY 32 POWER TO RETAIN UNPRODUCTIVE PROPERTY 3210 POWER TO MANAGE SECURITIES 3211 POWER TO SELL, EXCHANGE, REPAIR 3312 POWER TO LEASE, INCLUDING OIL AND MINERAL 3313 POWER TO LEND TO TRUSTOR’S PROBATE ESTATE 3314 POWER TO ADJUST FOR TAX CONSEQUENCES 3315 POWER TO BORROW AND ENCUMBER 3316 POWER TO INITIATE OR DEFEND LITIGATION AND TO COMPROMISE . 3317 POWER TO INSURE 33SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 4 of 39 Pages18 POWER TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT IF CONFLICTING CLAIMS ARISE 3419 POWER TO PURCHASE TREASURY BONDS 3420 POWER TO PURCHASE BONDS AT PREMIUM 3421 POWER TO PURCHASE BONDS AT DISCOUNT 3422 BROAD POWERS OF DISTRIBUTION 3423 RETAIN INVESTMENTS OF TRUSTOR 3524 MANAGEMENT OF TRUST PROPERTY 3525 POWER TO BORROW MONEY 3726 POWER TO LEND MONEY TO TRUST 3727 DEALINGS WITH TRUSTOR’S ESTATE 3728 MANNER OF HOLDING TRUST SECURITIES 3729 DETERMINATION OF PRINCIPAL AND INCOME 3730 REVISED UNIFORM PRINCIPAL AND INCOME ACT TO GOVERN 38 30.1 CALIFORNIA ACT 38 30.2 DEPRECIATION RESERVE 38 30.3 DEPLETION RESERVE 38 30.4 MUTUAL FUND DISTRIBUTIONS 38 30.5 RESERVE FOR LIMITED ECONOMIC LIFE 3831 TAXES AND EXPENSES OF TRUST 3832 ELECTIONS UNDER TAX LAWS 38TRUSTORS’ AND TRUSTEES’ SIGNATURES ON ADDENDUM 39SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 5 of 39 PagesEXHIBIT A - TRUST ESTATE EXHIBIT A(1) - COMMUNITY PROPERTY ASSETS We, ARTHUR SCARRONE and ROSEMARIE A. SCARRONE, declare that the fol-lowing property is confirmed as, and when relevant is transmuted to, our communityproperty whether previously held in Joint Tenancy form, individual name, as commu-nity property, or otherwise, and will remain so if this Trust is amended or partially orfully revoked. Recharacterization or transmutation will require joint consent of both.Withdrawal or partial or full revocation will not recharacterize or transmute thisproperty.ASSET DESCRIPTION APPROXIMATE VALUE Hl REAL PROPERTY Oy Residence at 2932 Kadema Drive, Sacramento $250,000~" 6 Vacation Home at 7213 - 3rd Street, Tahoma 90,000 “gan thf BANK, SAVINGS & LOAN, CREDIT UNION ACCOUNTS Great Western Def. Comp 74 2ZAWEAS 1% F~ oe ay Cu e909 The Golden 1 Savings Account GLose@ © VATS ae snl 15,000 Certificate of Deposit 20,000 Great American Savings @ ccs a> be co 3,000 Gibraltar Savings Certificate of Deposit CheS ee \ A Correxc-40;000- STOCKS, BONDS & INVESTMENTS PG&E Common Stock 10,000 Municipal Bonds 43,000 Preferred Stock Oo..© UefiaA a G oui 2,000 PROMISSORY NOTES & DEEDS OF TRUST none AUTOMOBILES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SAFE DEPOSIT BOX OR BOXES, IF ANY PERSONAL BELONGINGS AND EFFECTSSCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 6 of 39 Pages8. HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE AND FURNISHINGS 9. JOINTLY OWNED ASSETS REQUIRING ONLY ONE SIGNATURE FOR TRANSACTIONSThe following items retain their character as community property assets. With theexception of incapacity as defined in this Trust, only the spouse whose name appearsabove the asset(s) shall be the one whose signature is required for any transactionaffecting the listed asset. REQUIRES SIGNATURE OF ARTHUR SCARRONE ONLY RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS IRA, Golden 1 6,000 Monthly Annuity (PERS) 1,900 T. Rowe Price Def Comp) (40 9E D OUT You 12,000 Great Western Savings SUAS Caan 16,000 LIFE INSURANCE none REQUIRES SIGNATURE OF ROSEMARIE A. SCARRONE ONLY RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS IRA, Golden 1 10,000 LIFE INSURANCE none The Trustors estimate the gross value of the estate, community and separateproperty, at under $500,000 (FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS) at the time ofthe creation of this Trust. The Trustors are aware that should assets be valued in excessof $600,000 on the date of the first spouse’s death, there will be a Federal Estate Taxdue on the excess over $600,000.SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 7 of 39 PagesEXHIBIT A(2) - SEPARATE PROPERTY ASSETS We, ARTHUR SCARRONE and ROSEMARIE A. SCARRONE, declare that thefollowing property is confirmed as separate property of either spouse, whetherpreviously held in Joint Tenancy form, individual name, as community property, orotherwise. SEPARATE PROPERTY OF ARTHUR SCARRONEASSET DESCRIPTION APPROXIMATE VALUE1 Not Applicable SEPARATE PROPERTY OF ROSEMARIE A. SCARRONEASSET DESCRIPTION APPROXIMATE VALUE1 Not ApplicableSCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 8 of 39 PagesEXHIBIT A(3) - INTENTIONAL EXCLUSIONS FROM TRUSTNOTE: WHILE I ENCOURAGE YOU TO PUT ALL YOUR ASSETS INTO YOUR NAMEAS TRUSTEE OF THIS TRUST, YOUR POUR-OVER "WILLS" PUT LIMITED ASSETSNOT HELD IN THE NAME OF THIS TRUST INTO THIS TRUST WITHOUT PROBATESOQ LONG AS ASSETS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS TRUST DO NOT EXCEED $60,000 INVALUE IN CASH OR EQUIVALENT. AND, WITHOUT REGARD TO VALUE, ANYINTEREST IN LAND MUST BE HELD IN YOUR NAME AS TRUSTEE OF THIS TRUSTTO AVOID PROBATE!SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 9 of 39 PagesEXHIBIT B TRUSTEES a INITIAL TRUSTEE ARTHUR SCARRONE and ROSEMARIE A. SCARRONE are the initial Co- Trustees of this Trust. They, and all Co-Trustees hereafter, will be referred to in the singular as "Trustee" in order to simplify reading. No bond is required. 2 SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE In the event of the death, disability or resignation of either of ARTHUR SCARRONE or ROSEMARIE A. SCARRONE, the surviving person shall act as Sole ie hb Trustee. Should both ARTHUR SCARRONE and ROSEMARIE A. SCARRONE fail or Wy 4 refuse to act as Sole Trustee, then LAURA J. SCARRONE shall serve as the Successor Co-Trustees. and KAREN M. TOMASINI Should either LAURA J. SCARRONE or «/” O \y b qe pr KAREN M. TOMASINI fail or refuse to act as Co-Trustee, then JEFFERY A. SCARRONE shall serve as a Successor Co-Trustee. Should either JEFFERY A. SCARRONE or the @- i other Co-Trustee fail or refuse to act as Co-Trustee, then CAROL A. SCARRONE shall $a Ky Ae serve as a Successor Co-Trustee. The remaining Successor Co-Trustee may serve as wv \b Successor Sole Trustee. No bond shall be required of the foregoing person or persons. The signature of every acting Successor Co-Trustee is required for all transactions unless otherwise stated in this Exhibit. The last named Trustee may elect in writing or other instrument to name a Successor Trustee to act hereunder in the event of their death or resignation, in order to avoid having no Successor Trustee during the life of any trust hereunder, and any person so named must be bonded. 3 SPECIAL TRUSTEE NONE. 4 ABSENCE OF TRUSTEE Any Trustee shall have the right to resign at any time, and on such resignation the next alternate Trustee shall so serve. In the event of the failure, refusal, or inability of the appointed Trustee to serve, the remaining Trustee or any Beneficiary of any Trust provided for in this Declaration may secure, at the joint expense of all Trusts provided for in this Declaration and amendments then in existence, the appointment of a Successor Trustee by a Court of competent jurisdiction. SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 10 of 39 Pages5. RIGHTS AND POWERS OF SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE Any Successor Trustee appointed because of the death, resignation, or other actof the Trustee shall, on such appointment being made, immediately succeed to all titleof the Trustee to the Trust Estate and to all powers, rights, declarations, obligations,and immunities of the Trustee under this Declaration with the same effect as thoughsuch Successor were originally named as Trustee in this Declaration.6. TRUSTEE’S COMPENSATION The Trustee may waive fees or shall be entitled to pay themselves reasonablecompensation, not to exceed ONE PERCENT (1%) of the gross value of the TrustEstate per annum, from time to time without prior court order. In any event, theTrustee shall be entitled to reimburse themselves for any receipted expenses of theTrust that the Trustee has paid in connection with administration of this Trust.SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 11 of 39 PagesEXHIBIT C DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AND PRINCIPALil DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME DURING LIFE OF TRUSTORS All net income of this Trust shall be distributed not less frequently thanannually to the Trustors during their lives.2. DIVISION OF TRUST INTO TWO TRUSTS AT MARRIED TRUSTOR’S DEATH The first Trustor to die shall be called the Deceased Spouse, and the livingSpouse shall be called the Surviving Spouse. On the Deceased Spouse’s death, theTrustee shall divide the Trust Estate, including any additions made to the Trust byteason of the Deceased Spouse’s death, such as from the decedent's will or lifeinsurance policies on the decedent’s life, into two separate trusts, designated theSurvivor’s Trust and the Exemption Trust.3. FUNDING THE SURVIVOR’S TRUST The Survivor's Trust shall consist of the Surviving Spouse’s separate propertythat is a part of the Trust Estate and the Surviving Spouse’s interest in the Trustor’scommunity Estate included in or added to the Trust Estate in any manner, includingany undistributed or accrued income on it.4. PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INCOME OF SURVIVOR’S TRUST From the time of the Deceased Spouse’s death, the Trustee shall pay to orapply for the benefit of the Surviving Spouse the net income of the Survivor's Trust inquarter-annual or more frequent installments. If the Trustee considers such income insufficient, the Trustee shall also pay toor apply for the benefit of the Surviving Spouse any sums from the principal of theSurvivor's Trust that the Trustee, in the Trustee’s discretion, considers necessary for theSurviving Spouse’s proper health, support, comfort, enjoyment, and welfare. In addition, the Trustee shall pay the Surviving Spouse as much of theprincipal of the Survivor's Trust as he or she shall request in writing.5. FUNDING OF EXEMPTION TRUST The Exemption Trust shall consist of the Deceased Spouse’s separate propertythat is a part of the Trust Estate and the Deceased Spouse’s interest in the Trustor’sSCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 12 of 39 Pagescommunity Estate included in or added to the Trust estate in any manner, includingany undistributed or accrued income on it. This Trust shall become irrevocable at thedeath of the first Spouse/Trustor.6. DISTRIBUTION OF PRINCIPAL AND INCOME OF EXEMPTION TRUST On the Deceased Spouse’s death, the Trustee shall pay to or apply for thebenefit of the Surviving Spouse, from the net income of the Exemption Trust, all sumsand in any proportion that may be necessary, in the Trustee’s discretion, for theSurviving Spouse's health, education, support, and maintenance, in accordance withthe Surviving Spouse’s accustomed standard of living at the date of the DeceasedSpouse’s death, in quarter-annual or more frequent installments. Any income notdistributed shall be added to principal. If the Trustee considers the income insufficient, the Trustee shall also pay to orapply for the benefit of the Surviving Spouse and any one or more of the Trustor’sissue, all such sums from principal as the Trustee, in the Trustee’s discretion, considernecessary for the Beneficiaries’ respective proper health, education, support, andmaintenance. Payments from principal to the Surviving Spouse shall be made first from theSurvivor's Trust until it is exhausted, then and thereafter from the Exemption Trust,except that all or any part of those payments may be made from the Exemption Trustwithout exhausting the Survivor’s Trust if the Trustee considers it advisable.7 CONTINGENT (DISCLAIMER) TRUST If the Surviving Spouse disclaims any property given to him or her outright, orall or a portion of his or her interest in the Marital Trust, the property disclaimed bythe surviving Spouse shall be allocated to the Contingent Trust, rather than to theMarital Trust or the Surviving Spouse, to be managed and distributed as providedherein.8. EVENT TERMINATING TRUST AND DISTRIBUTION AT TERMINATION This Trust and all trusts hereunder shall terminate and the remaining principaland undistributed income shall be distributed free of trust at the death of the secondTrustor as follows: A. If the Trustors have advanced monies to certain Distributees, the totalsums advanced to said Distributees and still outstanding shall be deducted from thatDistributee’s share and credited to the other Distributees named herein on a proratedbasis. B. The Trustor’s Tahoma Cabin, located at 7213 Third Street, Tahoma,SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 13 of 39 PagesCalifornia, if still a Trust asset, shall be placed in a separate subtrust herein called theSCARRONE CABIN TRUST. q) The purpose of this trust is to provide for the aesthetic andrecreational enjoyment of CAROL A. SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURA J.SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A. SCARRONE. (2) The Trustors, ARTHUR SCARRONE and ROSEMARIE A.SCARRONE, shall have the right for life to use this recreational residence. This is nota life estate and is not assignable and cannot be leased or sold, and terminates whensaid individuals no longer desire to use this recreational residence, or upon theirdeath. (3) The Trustors, ARTHUR SCARRONE and ROSEMARIE A.SCARRONE, shall be responsible for all ordinary maintenance, repairs, taxes, andutilities pertaining to the Tahoma Cabin during both of their lifetimes. (4) If any of CAROL A. SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURAJ. SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A. SCARRONE fail to survive distribution herein, then thesurvivor or survivors of CAROL A. SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURA J.SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A. SCARRONE shall take, in equal shares, share and sharealike, outright and free of trust. G) During the joint lives of CAROL A. SCARRONE, KAREN M.TOMASINI, LAURA J. SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A. SCARRONE, any sale orencumbrance of said property shall only be allowed with the unanimous writtenconsent of each of CAROL A. SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURA J.SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A. SCARRONE. If any of CAROL A. SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURAJ. SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A. SCARRONE fail to survive termination of said subtrustherein, then the surviving Beneficiaries shall have the right to sell or encumber saidproperty only upon reaching the unanimous written consent of said survivingBeneficiaries. (6) The SCARRONE CABIN TRUST shall terminate either upon priortelease, by CAROL A. SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURA J. SCARRONE, andJEFFERY A. SCARRONE, or, upon the death of all of CAROL A. SCARRONE, KARENM. TOMASINI, LAURA J. SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A. SCARRONE. ”) Upon termination of the SCARRONE CABIN TRUST, saidrecreational property shall be distributed unto the surviving child or children of 4CAROL A. SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURA J. SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A.SCARRONE, in equal shares, share and share alike.SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 14 of 39 PagesC. The Trustee of this Trust shall place a total amount of TEN THOUSANDDOLLARS ($10,000.00), into a separate trust herein called the SCARRONE CABINFUND TRUST. (1) This subtrust shall be placed in a joint account, with CAROL A.SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURA J. SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A.SCARRONE as co-signatories, and used to pay for all ordinary maintenance, repairs,taxes, and utilities pertaining to the Tahoma Cabin, starting at the death of theSecond Trustor, and continuing during their lifetimes, or, until said funds of saidsubtrust are depleted. (2) The income only from said subtrust shall be used to pay for allordinary maintenance, repairs, taxes, and utilities pertaining to the Tahoma Cabin,starting at the death of the Second Trustor, and continuing until said funds of saidsubtrust are depleted. @) The principal from said subtrust may be invaded, only if theincome from said subtrust is insufficient, to pay for all ordinary maintenance, repairs,taxes, and utilities pertaining to the Tahoma Cabin. (4) The SCARRONE CABIN FUND TRUST shall terminate eitherupon the depletion of all funds included in said subtrust, or, upon the death of all ofCAROL A. SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURA J. SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A.SCARRONE. G) Upon termination of the SCARRONE CABIN FUND TRUST, allremaining principal and undistributed income shall be distributed unto the survivingchildren of CAROL A. SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURA J. SCARRONE, andJEFFERY A. SCARRONE, in equal shares, share and share alike. D. Unto CAROL A. SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURA J.SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A. SCARRONE, the balance of the Trust Estate, outright,free of trust, in equal shares, share and share alike. If any of them fail to survive distribution hereunder, then their child orchildren shall take their share as though they had survived, on the principle ofrepresentation, and if they leave no child or children surviving, then that share shalllapse and be distributed to the survivor or survivors of our above named children or,if deceased, but leaving children surviving, then unto their surviving child or childrenon the principle of representation as though they had survived. This distribution shall be outright, free of trust, to any Beneficiary, ifover the age of TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS. If any Beneficiary is under said age, thenthe Trustee shall not pay any income or any principal to any said Beneficiary untilthey have attained the age of TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS. Should such respectiveSCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 15 of 39 PagesBeneficiary die before attaining the age of TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS, then their shareshall lapse and be distributed unto the survivor or survivors of CAROL A. SCARRONE,KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURA J. SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A. SCARRONE, in equalshares, share and share alike, outright and free of trust. If none of CAROL A.SCARRONE, KAREN M. TOMASINI, LAURA J. SCARRONE, and JEFFERY A.SCARRONE survive, then this gift shall lapse and be distributed in the Residue Clausein this Exhibit.9 RESIDUE Should any of the above gifts lapse due to the failure of the Beneficiary tosurvive distribution hereunder, then they shall be given under this Residue Clause asfollows: A. FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of all remaining income and principal shall bedistributed unto the heirs of ARTHUR SCARRONE, in equal shares, share and sharealike, and, B. FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of all remaining income and principal shall bedistributed unto the heirs of ROSEMARIE A. SCARRONE, in equal shares, share andshare alike. This distribution shall be outright, free of trust, to any Beneficiary, ifover the age of TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS. If any Beneficiary is under said age, thenthe Trustee shall not pay any income or any principal to any said Beneficiary untilthey have attained the age of TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS. Should such respectiveBeneficiary die before attaining the age of TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS, then their shareshall lapse and be distributed unto the deceased Beneficiary’s child or children, iequal shares, share and share alike, outright and free of trust.SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST Page 16 of 39 PagesEXHIBIT D ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO EXHIBITS DATE EXHIBIT ITEM ADDED OR DELETED SIGNATURE TO CONFIRM +5/3/90 These are personal items Zz wish to leave to;Carol; Noritake China Pattern 75558 Diamond EarringsKaren: Crystal Stemware Pattern "Waoeat™ Gold Wedding Band and Diamond RingTaura: Noritake China Pattern #63II Gold ChainsJeff: MoPed, Pirearms, Torch sodering equiptment, Blectric Power Tools (Zable saw, Scroll saw, Skil saw, Router, Beltsander, Grinder, Chain saw (gas), Palm sander, Electric drills) and any other tools that may aot be listed. What Jeff does not want, he can give to his sisters or Frank Tomasini. FE wastes iG, lai ao A3/90_SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST. Page 17 of 39 Pages"ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO EXHIBITS DATE EXHIBIT ITEM ADDED OR DELETED SIGNATURE TO CONFIRM HOME AT 448 67 7H S7nE ET, Saczame wt P-1-94 SoeD =i CFE f, SCARZONE CON AILM1492 QAUERIER UW SAWNES Baw. CENT OF Ceposr VAL ote a SAW PRAM CISCO FEDERAL SAVINGS Cent. é De; 2, & 2S vr AS 7, ACK Ws <4770000 997-4 Casio TUl-Ue Cen af me close. rn heqoowl SAW FRANCESCO FERERAL SAVING ACECUMT— Naan on es toe 1-4 FVUps fff 98 Cae Sis Asernarce) DAE UAE — kedemption Value 44, 9S1 Sb V 2Geee MUTIAL FUND 8 3d eed Kemper. CAL TAK FLEE ou 8 vod FBRaWetiks CAL TAK FREE S MUTUAL Fd 191) Abtrrine W/2/99 dem pti on L9, YOU 6 3 — trans: fer-4SG Annuity BR (S,000 enes “EE” OL SA VING Bano ttt. Sounna) (830,.¢ Face. VACve, uU 4Pae Americas SAVILG BAwiK BRE ott C.D. CLEED 2-6-97 opewEP A Fass Book Account 2-6-93 Cisco Fea nany Mien ) WS COA Zo Ze Aw 2, Fz. Aieslo FebERAL Savigsg.. F15,000 CO. 6-46-93 Ac7, Uo ATV OCU L2LE -S € 2644 CnAnNe MN A SOIL GF 30, 000 Sees “CE “US Spun 4 Bowes ah teade. Valve.) Scar 1-30-43 SERIES °F EE" US SAWKNG BOnos ws SS Cando) (Fac's Yauve) 45, 0b-0 3-/8-94.hg /93 Fran ifn Velucmarkdr *oAdNgAT ~~: SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST 7pacman LA, Page 18 of 39 PagesADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO EXHIBITS DATE EXHIBIT ITEM ADDED OR DELETED SIGNATURE TO CONFIRM2-93-94 Sans Feaucisco F€PGEAR Ce RT. «Ff HEP." B 5,281. ‘7 Bez. Ks 4749000 (502-2
Related Contentin Sacramento County
Case
ESTATE OF: CHRISTY HOLDREN
Aug 27, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Letters of Administration) |Probate |24PR002504
Case
ESTATE OF: HEATHER ANN WARD
Aug 28, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Probate of Will & Letters Tes...) |Probate |24PR002548
Case
ESTATE OF: JOHN RAYMOND DALE
Aug 29, 2024 |James E. McFetridge |(Probate of Will & Letters Tes...) |Probate |24PR002563
Case
ESTATE OF: AMANDA KERSEY BETTIS
Aug 28, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Probate of Will & Letters of ...) |Probate |24PR002519
Case
IN RE: THE SCARRONE FAMILY TRUST
Aug 29, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Trust Petitions) |Probate |24PR002551
Case
CONSERVATORSHIP OF: GERALD CARLILE SMITH
Aug 28, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Conservatorship - Person & Es...) |Probate |24PR002520
Case
ESTATE OF: KATHERINE RACKLEY
Aug 26, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Probate of Will & Letters Tes...) |Probate |24PR002502
Case
GUARDIANSHIP OF: EMERSON ISAU ANAYA GUZMAN
Aug 29, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Guardianship - Person) |Probate |24PR002564
Ruling
34-2023-00335758-CU-BC-GDS
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Breach of Contract/Warranty) |34-2023-00335758-CU-BC-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2023-00335758-CU-BC-GDS: Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation vs. Earth First Builders 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer in Department 54Tentative RulingMoving party states the incorrect address in its Notice of Motion and does not provide notice ofthe Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). The correct address forDepartments 53 and 54 (Law and Motion) of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6thStreet, Sacramento, California 95814. Moving counsel is directed to contact the opposing partyforthwith to advise it of Department 54’s correct address, Local Rule 1.06, and the Court’stentative ruling procedure. If moving counsel is unable to contact the opposing party prior to thehearing, they shall be available at the hearing in the event the opposing party appears withoutfollowing the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).Plaintiff Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Strike the Answer of Defendant EarthFirst Builders, Inc. (“Defendant”) is unopposed and is GRANTED.This action arises out of the alleged breach of a rental contract for construction equipment.Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 7, 2023. On May 22, 2023, the law firm CardinaleFayard, APLC filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint on Defendant’s behalf. On January 29,2024, Cardinal Fayard filed a motion to be relieved as defense counsel, which the Court grantedon April 16, 2024. Cardinal Fayard served the Court’s order on Defendant the same day, April16, 2023. To date, Defendant has not retained another attorney to represent it.Plaintiff now moves pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 436 tostrike Defendant’s Answer on the basis that Defendant is not represented by counsel and cannotappear in the action in propria persona.CCP section 436 authorizes the Court, 'in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper,' to'strike out... any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state.' Defendantis a California corporation. Although a corporation has the capacity to sue and defend, it is not anatural person, and therefore cannot appear in an action in propria persona or through an officeror agent who is not an attorney; it can appear only through counsel. (Caressa Camille, Inc v.Alcoholic Bev. Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.) A motion to strike is aproper vehicle to attack a pleading by a corporation that is not represented by counsel. (See, e.g.,CLD Constr., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 CaI.App.4th 1141.)As stated above, the Court granted Cardinal Fayard’s motion to be relieved as Defendant’scounsel on April 16, 2024, and the Court's electronic register of actions does not reflect anappearance by any replacement counsel for Defendant to date. Defendant has made no showingto the contrary.Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendant’s Answer is granted and its Answer isstricken. Plaintiff may file the Request for Entry of Default it attached as Exhibit C to its moving Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2023-00335758-CU-BC-GDS: Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation vs. Earth First Builders 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer in Department 54papers.This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CodeCiv. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2023-00335758-CU-BC-GDS: Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation vs. Earth First Builders 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer in Department 54Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 3 of 3
Ruling
34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Complaint (non-tort/non...) |34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiff Medfin Manager, LLC’s (“Medfin”) motion for an order compelling Defendant Countyof Sacramento (“County”) to serve an amended privilege log is DENIED, as follows.Medfin’s request for judicial notice is unopposed and granted.Factual and Procedural Background[1]This action arises out of Medfin’s claim that the County erroneously and negligently disbursedrestitution amounts owed to it to the wrong party. The restitution was ordered against TimothyHessler, a now disbarred attorney (“Hessler”).Prior to April 21, 2008, the State Bar of California (“State Bar”) opened a disciplinaryinvestigation into Hessler. (D&O at p. 2.). On or about April 21, 2008, the State Bar ofCalifornia, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, filed a Notice of Disciplinary Charges against him.(Ibid.) In January 19, 2011, the California Supreme Court declined to accept Hessler’s voluntaryresignation and ordered the disciplinary matter to proceed. (Ibid.) The matter was submitted onMarch 28, 2011, and Hessler was ultimately disbarred. (Ibid.) The State Bar further orderedHessler to pay restitution in the amount of $187,200 plus interest to MedFin. (Id. at p. 17.)On or about June 17, 2011, during its investigation into Hessler, the State Bar sent a personal andconfidential notice to the Sacramento County District Attorney (“DA”) pursuant to Business andProfessions Code section 6044.5 (“Notice”). (Decl. of Blake P. Sequeira ISO Opp’n (“SequeiraDecl.”) ¶ 5, Ex. B.)Business and Professions Code section 6044.5 provides in pertinent part: When an investigation or formal proceeding concerns alleged misconduct which may subject a licensee to criminal prosecution for any felony, or any lesser crime committed during the course of the practice of law, or in any manner that the client of the licensee was a victim, or may subject the licensee to disciplinary charges in another jurisdiction, the State Bar shall disclose, in confidence, information not otherwise public under this chapter to the appropriate agency responsible for criminal or disciplinary enforcement or exchange that information with that agency.(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6044.5, subd. (a) [emphasis added].)The Notice stated that Hessler was the subject of multiple complaints of misconduct that maysubject him to criminal charges. (Sequeira Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B.) At an unknown date, the State Bar Page 1 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54provided a record of approximately 2,475 pages to the DA, pursuant to Business andProfessions Code section 6044.5, for its evaluation of potential criminal charges.(Sequeira Decl. ¶ 6.) The documents contained 27 individual “tabs” each appearing tocorrelate to a different complainant, including prior clients of Hessler, Judicial Officers,and third-party individuals not relevant to this action. (Ibid.)Through its own statutory authority, and pursuant to its own investigation, on or about March 1,2012, the DA filed a criminal complaint against Hessler in the Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of Sacramento (“Superior Court”) under case 12F01435. (SequeiraDecl. ¶ 7, Ex. C.) In the criminal complaint, the DA alleged Hessler committed a felonyviolation of Penal Code section 508 against a single victim, Amanda Whiseant. (Ibid.)On or about June 1, 2012, the Superior Court issued a restitution order against Hessler in thecriminal case. (Sequeira Decl. ¶ 8, Exs. D-E.) A Disposition Notice was sent to the SacramentoCounty Department of Revenue Recovery (“DRR”) for collections pursuant to an agreementbetween the Superior Court and the County. (Sequeira Decl. ¶¶ 8-10, Exs. D-E.) Despite allegingonly one victim in the underlying criminal complaint, the Disposition Notice included numerousnames with different amounts listed for each for each individual, totaling $176,073.00. (Ibid.)One of the listed names was 'Curtis Thordsen/Medfin' in the amount of $137,200. (SequeiraDecl. ¶ 9-10, Exs. D-E.)Over the course of the next few years, Hessler made payments to the DRR towards his criminalrestitution balance. (Sequeira Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. F.) Status conferences were held in the underlyingcriminal case to confirm payments were received. On April 13, 2017, the Superior Court issued aMinute Order instructing “DRR to disburse monies to victims w/in 2 weeks.” (Sequeira Decl.¶ 12, Ex. G.) On April 25, 2017, the County issued a payment to “Curtis Thorsden” inthe amount of $137,200.00. (Sequeira Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. H.)On May 15, 2017, the Superior Court entered judgment and sentencing against Hessler, andgranted Hessler’s motion to reduce the charges to a misdemeanor pursuant to PenalCode section 17(b). (Sequeira Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. G.) The criminal case concluded. (Ibid.)On August 10, 2021, Medfin filed the Complaint in this action. On October 10, 2023, Medfinserved the County with a Request for Production of Documents, Set Three (“RPFs”).(Decl. of Christopher O. Holleran ISO Mot. (“Holleran Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The RFPsincluded nine requests for production; the following two are relevant to this motion: 24) Any and all DOCUMENTS provided to the SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY by the CALIFORNIA STATE BAR in connection with the HESSLER MATTER, during the RELEVANT PERIOD. Page 2 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54 25) Any and all COMMUNICATIONS between the SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY and the CALIFORNIA STATE BAR in connection with the HESSLER MATTER, during the RELEVANT PERIOD.(Id. at pp. 4-5.) On December 21, 2023, the County served responses to the RFPs. (HolleranDecl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) As a result of meet and confer efforts that followed, the parties agreed theCounty would provide a privilege log in lieu of the production and release of the requesteddocuments. (Holleran Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C.) On March 18, 2024, the County served Plaintiff withsaid privilege log. (Holleran Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. D.)The privilege log stated: As you are aware, the State Bar of California conducted an investigation into Timothy W. Hessler (Disbarred SB#231689). As a result of the investigation, approximately 2475 pages were sent to the Sacramento County District Attorney on or about June 17, 2011, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6044.5 et. al. The documents were sent by “F. Jacobs, Special Investigator [for The State Bar of California]” to Michael Blazina, Sacramento County DA Head of Special Investigations. The document packet contains twenty-seven (27) tabbed exhibits with extra exhibits that appear to be sub-exhibits. Each tab appears to correlate to a complainant against Timothy Hessler. The following are files included in the packet, with document dates between September 2007 and June 2011: Tab 1: 07-o-14374 Peters Tab 2: 08-o-12537 SBI (Hon. Burger-Plavan) Tab 3: 07-o-14322 Hon. Parker 08-o-11053 Hon. Parker Tab 4: 08-o-13111 Hovious Tab 5: 08-o-10538 Sacharko Tab 6: 08-o-13083 Cetti Tab 7: 08-o-11112 Robert Tab 8: 08-o-12694 Duni Tab 9: 08-o-12329 Wakefield Tab 10: 08-o-12896 Medina Tab 11: 08-o-13896 White 07-o-14975 White Tab 12: 07-o-14374 Peters Tab 13: 08-o-11822 Nesbitt Page 3 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54 Tab 14: 08-o-11879 Dexter Tab 15: 08-o-12660 Nguyen Tab 16: 07-o-14975 White Tab 17: 08-o-10374 Vu Tab 18: 07-o-14172 Griffin Tab 19: 07-o-14659 Wadum Tab 20: 09-o-12090 Whiseant Tab 21: 08-o-13437 Le Tab 22: 08-o-13436 Burke Tab 23: 08-o-11993 Cowsert Tab 24: 08-o-12173 Puccio Tab 25: 07-o-13650 Valinoti Tab 26: 07-o-14322 Thorsden Tab 27: 07-o-14560 Hon. Parker Each tab contains various documents including, but not limited to, statements made by the witnesses to the State Bar investigators, documents pertaining to the complainant(s) case including financial, medical, and familial records, and miscellaneous judicial documents. Respondent asserts that it is not authorized to release the aforementioned documents without a waiver of confidentiality from the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California (Business and Professions Code sections 6044.5 and 6086.1; see also California State Bar Rules of Procedure rule 2302). Further, the records contain nonpublic court records which are confidential pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6090.6. (See also section 6044.5). Additionally, the records contain documents that are subject to privilege under the attorney client doctrine (see California State Bar Rule 1.6; see also Business and Professions Code section 6068(e) and section 6103.) Last, the records contain medical records that are subject to Federal and State confidentiality laws requiring patient notice prior to release. (42 U.S. Code section 1320d).(Ibid.)Medfin filed the instant motion in response.Discussion Page 4 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54Medfin moves for an order compelling the County “to serve an amended, complete, and code-compliant privilege log” on the grounds that the privilege log provided is “woefully inadequate.(Am. Not. of Mot. 2:1-6.) Medfin argues that the Court “has the power to compel amended andcomplete privilege logs[,]” and the County’s privilege log “do[es] not provide the level of detailrequired by the [Code of Civil Procedure] and California case law.” (Mem. of P.&A. ISO Mot.6:5-9, 7:12-15.) Medfin also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,810.00. (Am. Not. ofMot. 2:14-16.)The County opposes the motion, rejoining that the privilege log is sufficiently detailed under thecirc*mstances as the additional detail sought by Medfin “would require disclosure of informationobtained in confidence from the [State Bar] and is privileged.” (Opp’n 7:5-10.) The Countystates: Disclosure of any documentation or records pertaining to the State Bar’s investigation may be in violation of Business and Professions Code § 6044.5 and California State Bar Rule 2302. Violation of such laws may result in disciplinary action pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 6103, which the counsel for the County would very much like to avoid.(Opp’n 7:22-26.) The County further argues: [W]here a [discovery] response has been made, but the demanding party is not satisfied with it, the remedy is a motion to compel further responses. [Citation.] Where a response has been made as to privilege, and the demanding party is not satisfied with the applicability of the privilege to the specific documents, the remedy is a motion to seek a determination of the claim from the court . . . . .... However, [Medfin] fails to address, in their motion, the privilege objection lodged by the [County].(Opp’n 5:16-6:14.) Any party to an action may serve a written demand to permit inspection and copying of documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible things in the responding party's possession, custody, or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) [fn.] Within 30 days, the responding party must serve a written response to the demand that separately responds to each category Page 5 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54 of documents or other things the demand seeks with (1) a statement the responding party will comply with the particular demand; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; or (3) “[a]n objection to the particular demand.” (§ 2031.210, subd. (a); see id. § 2031.260.) If the responding party objects to a demand, the party must (1) “[i]dentify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made”; and (2) “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated.” (§ 2031.240, subd. (b).) . . . . Privilege logs have long been used by practitioners to list and describe the items to be protected. But the expression “‘privilege log’” appeared nowhere in the Code of Civil Procedure, rather it was merely “jargon, commonly used by courts and attorneys to express the requirements of [section 2031.240, subdivision (b)].” [Citations.] “ ‘The purpose of a “privilege log” is to provide a specific factual description of documents in aid of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document production. [Citation.] The purpose of providing a specific factual description of documents is to permit a judicial evaluation of the claim of privilege.’ ” [Citation.] In 2012, the Legislature amended section 2031.240 “to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law.” (§ 2031.240, subd. (c)(2).) The new section 2031.240, subdivision (c)(1), provides, “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” In adding this subdivision, the Legislature declared, “Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.” (§ 2031.240, subd. (c)(2).) .... If the response and any privilege log fail to provide sufficient information to allow the trial court to rule on the merits, the court Page 6 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54 may order the responding party to provide a further response by serving a privilege log or, if one already has been served, a supplemental privilege log that adequately identifies each document the responding party claims is privileged and the factual basis for the privilege claim. [Citation.] . . . .(Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1124-1127.) A privilege log must identify with particularity each document the responding party claims is protected from disclosure by a privilege and provide sufficient factual information for the propounding party and court to evaluate whether the claim has merit. [Citations.] The precise information required for an adequate privilege log will vary from case to case based on the privileges asserted and the underlying circ*mstances. In general, however, a privilege log typically should provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document’s date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted. [Citations.](Id. at p. 1130 [emphasis added].)As stated by the Court of Appeal in Catalina Island Yacht Club, supra, the specific informationrequired for an adequate privilege log is case specific and depends on the privilege(s) asserted.Here, the Court finds that the County’s privilege log is sufficiently detailed in light of the natureof the privileges asserted. The County asserts that Business and Professions Code section 6044.5makes confidential all information it received from the State Bar. Accordingly, the Countycannot provide the additional detail requested by Medfin without running the risk of violatingthat statute.Medfin does not challenge in this motion the validity of the privilege claimed or its applicabilityto the subject RFPs; rather, Medfin solely argues that the County’s privilege log is inadequate.For the stated reasons, the Court disagrees. Under the circ*mstances of this case and the natureof the privileges asserted, the Court finds the privilege log to be sufficient.The Court does not reach the merits of asserted privilege, as that issue is not raised in the instantmotion.For the stated reasons, Medfin’s motion is denied. Page 7 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CodeCiv. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)[1] Much of the background comes from the State Bar of California’s Decision andOrder of Involuntary Inactive Enrollment, issued by the State Bar Court of Californiaagainst Timothy Hessler on June 15, 2011, which is attached as Exhibit 2 to Medfin’sRequest for Judicial Notice. The document is referred to herein as “D&O.”NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf. Page 8 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 9 of 9
Ruling
34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS
Aug 28, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS: Heriberto Mosqueda vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents from Jagdip Singh in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiffs Heriberto Mosqueda, Sr. and Gladis Paola Barrera’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motionfor to compel Defendant Jagdip Sing (“Singh”) to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, is ruled upon as follows.BackgroundThe Court refers the parties to its background discussion in the ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion tocompel as to FedEx on today’s calendar for the general background of this dispute. Specificallyas to Singh, the Court notes that the discovery set consisted of two requests for production ofdocuments (Request Nos. 49-50). At issue in this motion is Request No. 49, which soughtSingh’s phone records for the date of the incident.DiscussionThe Court again refers to its ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as to FedEx on today’scalendar regarding Singh’s arguments that Plaintiffs’ motion is mooted by Singh’s belatedservice of further responses and that Plaintiffs’ filed this motion too hastily before fully meetingand conferring. The Court’s analysis in that ruling applies equally here.A party may respond to a request for production of documents by any of the following: (1) astatement of compliance; (2) a representation of an inability to comply; or (3) an objection.(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a).)As set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, “A representation of inability tocomply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm thata diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with thatdemand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because theparticular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, orstolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the respondingparty. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organizationknown or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or categoryof item.”As noted above, Request No. 49 sought Singh’s cell phone records from the date of the incident.Singh responded, “Defendant is unable to comply with this request because no responsivedocuments are in his possession, custody, or control.” (Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement, p. 2:12-14.) This response fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230, as it does notaffirm that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry was made, does not specify why or how Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS: Heriberto Mosqueda vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents from Jagdip Singh in Department 54Singh does not possess responsive documents, and does not identify any person or organizationknown or believed to have the documents. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.DispositionPlaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Singh has already served furtherresponses, so the Court will not order the responses be re-served. However, the Court expressesno opinion as to the sufficiency of the further responses.Plaintiffs also request monetary sanctions in the amount of $985, representing one hour ofattorney time at $750 per hour, one hour of paralegal time at $175 per hour, and the $60 filingfee for this motion. The Court finds the amount requested reasonable. Thus, Plaintiffs’ requestfor sanctions is GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against Singh and his counsel jointly andseverally. Sanctions shall be paid by no later than September 20, 2024, and if not paid by thatdate, Plaintiffs may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions,which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CodeCiv. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO34-2022-00314140-CU-PO-GDS: Heriberto Mosqueda vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents from Jagdip Singh in Department 54non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 3 of 3
Ruling
MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs KHAI...
Aug 26, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Breach of Contract/Warranty) |23CV007247
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO23CV007247: MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs KHAIRA LOGISTICS INC., et al.08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Post Judgment Turnover in Aid of Enforcement of Judgment in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiff Midland States Bank’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for a post-judgment turnover orderpursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 699.040 is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.On May 10, 2024, the Court entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff againstdefendants Khaira Logistics, Inc. and Major Singh (collectively, “Defendants”) for thesum of $522,143.52 plus the return of Plaintiff’s four 2023 Wabash Arctic Lite Reeferswhich serve as collateral on the defaulted loan agreement (the “Vehicles”). To date,Defendants have failed to pay any portion of the judgment or surrender possession ofthe Vehicles despite multiple demands. (Declaration of Mark M. Scott, ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. 2.)Section 699.040 provides: “If a writ of execution is issued the judgment creditor mayapply to the court ex parte, or on noticed motion if the court so directs or a court rule sorequires, for an order directing the judgment debtor to transfer to the levying officereither or both of the following: (1) Possession of property sought to be levied upon if theproperty is sought to be levied upon by taking it into custody, ( 2) Possession ofdocumentary evidence of title to property of or a debt owed to the judgment debtor thatis sought to be levied upon."Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the order submitted.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by videoconference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Page 1 of 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO23CV007247: MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs KHAIRA LOGISTICS INC., et al.08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Post Judgment Turnover in Aid of Enforcement of Judgment in Department 54Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements forrequesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the SacramentoSuperior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.PdfA Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s ApprovedOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests acourt reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and itmust be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an officialreporter will be provided. Page 2 of 2
Ruling
34-2023-00337868-CU-PO-GDS
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |34-2023-00337868-CU-PO-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2023-00337868-CU-PO-GDS: Louis Accaria vs. Von Housen Management Inc, a California corporation 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 54Tentative RulingDefendants Von Housen Management, Inc., and George Grinzewitsch, Jr., Inc. dba Mercedes-Benz of El Dorado Hills’ (collectively “Defendants”) demurrer to Plaintiffs Louis Accaria, Jr.,Emily Trowe, and Kali Mullock, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem MichelleGregory’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) nuisance and trespass causes of action is ruled upon asfollows.Factual AllegationsThis action arises out of a car fire, which spread to Plaintiffs’ home.On October 4, 2021, Plaintiffs took their 2017 Mercedes-Benz GLC43 SUV (the “Vehicle”) toMercedes-Benz of El Dorado Hills (“Mercedes Benz”) for routine service, including an oilchange. (Compl. ¶ 14.) After the service appointment was complete, Emily Trowe paid theservice invoice and took possession of the Vehicle shortly after 4:00 p.m. (Compl. ¶ 15.) EmilyTrowe and Kali Mullock then drove the Vehicle back to their home with Louise Accaria, Jr.following behind them in a separate vehicle. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs’ home was approximately fivemiles from Mercedes Benz.Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs at the time, a Mercedes Benz service mechanic failed to replace theVehicle’s oil cap after it was removed during the service. The oil cap was not on the Vehiclewhen Plaintiffs took possession and drove home. (Compl. ¶ 15.)Once home, Emily Trowe parked the Vehicle in the garage and she and Kali Mullock exited theVehicle. Louise Accaria, Jr. then pulled up to the family’s home and exited his vehicle. Shortlyafter arriving home, Emily Trowe began telling Louise Accaria, Jr. that she believed somethingwas wrong with the Vehicle. (Compl. ¶ 16.) Suddenly, and without warning, the Vehicle’sengine compartment caught fire, which quickly spread. (Ibid.) While speaking with the 911dispatcher, Plaintiffs received a text message from Mercedes Benz directing them to return theVehicle due to a possible oil cap missing following service. (Ibid.) Louis Accaria, Jr. notifiedMercedes Benz that the Vehicle’s engine compartment was on fire and sent them a photographvia text message. (Ibid.)As the fire in the garage grew, smoke filled Plaintiff’s home. The fire and smoke causedsignificant property damages as a result. (Compl. ¶ 16.) The El Dorado Hills Fire Departmentconcluded that the fire originated in the Vehicle’s engine compartment, the first fuel ignited wasengine oil, the ignition source was the engine, and the act that allowed the fuel and ignitionsource to come together was oil leaking from the engine. (Compl. ¶ 17.)Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on April 12, 2023. It alleges causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) Page 1 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2023-00337868-CU-PO-GDS: Louis Accaria vs. Von Housen Management Inc, a California corporation 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 54nuisance, and (3) trespass. All three causes of action are premised upon allegations thatDefendants negligently and carelessly performed automotive services by failing to replace theVehicle’s oil cap at the conclusion of service and failing to properly inspect the vehicle beforereturning it to Plaintiffs. (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 28, 32.)Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint. They now move for judgment on the pleadings asto Plaintiffs’ nuisance and trespass causes of action.Legal StandardA defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings if the operative complaint doesnot state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (SeeCode Civ. Proc., § 438, subds.(b)(1), (c)(1)(B)(ii).) Except as provided by statute, amotion for judgment on the pleadings is analyzed like a general demurrer. (Cloud v.Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) Accordingly, the grounds fora motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the challengedpleading or be based on facts which the court may judicially notice.DiscussionDefendants move for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ second cause of action fornuisance and third cause of action for trespass, arguing “the facts support [P]laintiffs’ first causeof action for negligence but cannot state a claim for nuisance or trespass.” (Mot. 3:3-8.)NuisanceDefendants contend that Plaintiffs’ “nuisance cause of action is a clone of the negligence causeof action[,]” and “where negligence and nuisance causes of action rely on the same facts aboutlack of due care, the nuisance claim is a negligence claim.” (Mot. 5:15-23 [footnote omitted].)Defendants continue: “[the] complaint thus alleges only one cause of action, and one breach ofduty by defendants.” (Id. at 6:7-8.)Plaintiffs oppose the motion, rejoining that “[t]he torts of nuisance and negligence frequentlycoexist[,]” but “it does not necessarily follow that a cause of action for nuisance is notactionable.” (Opp’n 5:22-6:1.)“Where negligence and nuisance claims rely on the same facts regarding lack of due care, thenuisance claim is a negligence claim." (El Escorial Owners’ Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007)154 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349.) In such a case, where the nuisance and negligence claims rely onthe same facts, a challenge to the pleadings is proper because the nuisance claim has “noindependent vitality” and simply restates the “negligence claim ‘using a different label.’ Page 2 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2023-00337868-CU-PO-GDS: Louis Accaria vs. Von Housen Management Inc, a California corporation 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 54[Citation.]” (See Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 543; see id. at p. 542 [“Given‘the broad definition of nuisance,’ the independent viability of a nuisance cause of action‘depends on the facts of each case.’ (Citation.)”].)Here, Defendants are correct that as currently pled, the second cause of action for nuisance relieson the same underlying facts as the first cause of action for negligence. Therefore, the motion iswell-taken.Plaintiffs do not dispute that their negligence and nuisance causes of action rely on the samefacts. Rather, they simply argue that they have alleged the requisite elements of a nuisanceclaim.For the stated reasons, Defendants’ motion is granted as to Plaintiffs’ second cause of action fornuisance.TrespassDefendants argue that Plaintiff’s third cause of action for trespass fails because trespass requiresan unauthorized entry onto their property, and the Vehicle “caught fire in plaintiff’s garage, afterplaintiff drove the vehicle there.” (Mot. 7:20-27.) Defendants contend “the disputed issue iswhether plaintiff has pled a ‘lack of permission for the entry or acts in excess of permission.’[Citation.]” (Reply 4:10-12.)Plaintiffs respond that they “properly plead their trespass cause of action[,]” as case law supportsthat “a fire caused by negligence can result in a trespass.” (Opp’n 9:1-3.) Plaintiffs further arguethat it is absurd to argue that they authorized the fire and subsequent damage by driving theVehicle in the garage. (Opp’n 8:5-10.) “Trespass is an unlawful interference with possession of property.” The elements of trespass are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or control of the property; (2) the defendant’s intentional, reckless, or negligent entry onto the property; (3) lack of permission for the entry or acts in excess of permission; (4) harm; and (5) the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm.(Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 261–262.)///“ ‘[T]respass may be committed by consequential and indirect injury as well as by directand forcible injury.’ [Citation.]” (Elton v. Anheuser-Busch Beverage Group (1996) 50Cal.App.4th 1301, 1306.) “The interference need not take the form of a personal entryonto the property by the wrongdoer. Instead, it ‘may be accomplished by the casting of Page 3 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2023-00337868-CU-PO-GDS: Louis Accaria vs. Von Housen Management Inc, a California corporation 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 54substances or objects upon the plaintiff's property from without its boundaries.’[Citation.]” (Ibid.)“ ‘[A]n entry may [also] be accomplished by setting in motion an agency which, when put inoperation, extends its energy to the plaintiff’s premises to its material injury.’ [Citation.]” (Elton,supra, at p. 1036.) “Thus, intangible intrusions such as noise or vibrations may constitute atrespass if they cause actual physical damage [citations] as opposed to merely a diminution inmarket value [citation].” (Id. at p. 1307.) Accordingly the Court of Appeal in Elton followed outof state authority in holding that “a fire can constitute a trespassory invasion.” (Ibid.) “Whennegligently inflicted with resulting actual damage, [fire] may constitute a trespass.” (Ibid.)Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint, in pertinent part, as follows: 31. At all times herein mentioned, plaintiffs were the owners, tenants, and/or lawful occupants of property damaged by the fire herein mentioned. 32. Defendants, and each of them, by their acts and/or omissions set forth above, directly and legally caused the fire to ignite, spread, cause harm, damage and injury to plaintiffs, resulting in a trespass upon these plaintiffs’ property interests, 33. Plaintiffs did not grant permission for defendants to wrongfully act in a manner so as to cause the fire, and thereby produce a fire which spread and wrongfully entered upon the property, resulting in the harm, injury, and/or damage alleged above. 34. That as a direct and proximate result thereof, plaintiffs suffered and will continue to suffer damages as set forth above, in an amount according to proof at trial.(Compl. ¶¶ 31-34.)The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations sufficiently state a cause of action for trespass basedupon the referenced authorities. The authorities cited by Defendants to support their argumentthat Plaintiffs cannot pursue a cause of action for trespass because they drove the Vehicle intotheir garage are inapposite. (See, e.g., County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137Cal.App.4th 292, 315 [finding trespass cause of action could not be maintained against a leadmanufacturer when the plaintiffs consented to the placement of lead on their properties]; ibid.[“Their alleged lack of knowledge at that time of lead’s dangerous propensities does not vitiatetheir consent to the placement of the lead on their properties, though it may make that consent Page 4 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2023-00337868-CU-PO-GDS: Louis Accaria vs. Von Housen Management Inc, a California corporation 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 54uninformed.”].)Therefore, Defendants’ motion is denied as to Plaintiffs third cause of action for trespass.ConclusionFor the stated reasons, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to thenuisance cause of action and denied as to the trespass cause of action.Where granted, the motion is granted with leave to amend as this is the first challenge to thepleadings. Plaintiffs may file a First Amended Complaint no later than September 9, 2024, toaddress the deficiencies raised in the demurrer.Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiffs are directed to present the clerk with acopy of this ruling at the time they file the First Amended Complaint to facilitate its filing.This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CodeCiv. Proc., § 1019.5; CRC 3.1312.)NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for Page 5 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2023-00337868-CU-PO-GDS: Louis Accaria vs. Von Housen Management Inc, a California corporation 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 54non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 6 of 6
Ruling
IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Civil Petition) |24CV010770
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54Tentative RulingThe First Amended Verified Petition for approval for transfer of payment rights by andbetween Roman Yslas (“the Payee”) and J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC(“Petitioner”), pursuant to California Insurance Code sections 10134, et seq. isUNOPPOSED and GRANTED.Payee seeks to transfer a payment of $59,000.00 from a future structured settlementpayment due on April 2, 2028, in exchange for a purchase price of $30,284.39. Thefuture payment has a discounted present value equal to $48,442.41. The purchaseprice to be paid to Payee was calculated using a discount rate of 19.47%.Payee is 26 years old. He is not married, and he does not have any children. He worksas an EMT, working approximately 40 hours a week at the rate of $21.00 per hour. Hedoes not have any court-ordered child support obligations. The subject settlementoccurred in 2003 and resulted from a wrongful death claim. (Am. Decl. of Payee ISOPet. ¶¶ 4, 8.)Payee declares that when the original settlement was completed, the future paymentthat is the subject of this petition was not intended to pay for future medical care andtreatment related to the incident that was the subject of the settlement or necessaryliving expenses. (Am. Decl. of Payee ISO Pet. ¶¶ 6, 7.)Payee had one previous transfer of a structured settlement payment approved inFebruary 2024,[1] in which he transferred a future payment of $45,000.00 in exchangefor $23,000. In support of that transfer, Payee explained that he intended to use thefunds to purchase vending machines and start a business. The current petition does notindicate if Payee did so.If the current petition is approved, Payee avers: I will use the money received from the proposed settlement to pay off high interest credit cards that I have. By doing this it will minimize the interest and even avoid interest charges. This will improve my credit score. With my credit score improving, this can make it easier to qualify for better interest Page 1 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54 rates and other loans, such as mortgages in the future. The less debt I have, the more flexibility I will have for my budget. I can continue to invest in my business in e-commerce. Which in the long run will bring me more passive income.(Am. Decl. of Payee ISO Pet. ¶ 11.)The Court finds under Insurance Code section 10139.5 that the proposed sale is: (1) Is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents. (2) The payee has been advised in writing by the transferee to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer and has either received that advice or knowingly waived, in writing, the opportunity to receive the advice. (3) The transferee has complied with the notification requirements set forth in Insurance Code section 10139.5, subdivision (f)(2); the transferee has provided the payee with a disclosure form that complies with Insurance Code section 10136; and the transfer agreement complies with Insurance Code sections 10136 and 10138. (4) The transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority. (5) The payee understands the terms of the transfer agreement, including the terms set forth in the disclosure statement required by Insurance Code section 10136. (6) The payee understands and does not wish to exercise the payee’s right to cancel the transfer agreement.Accordingly, the petition is granted. Petitioner shall submit a formal order for the Court'ssignature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312. Page 2 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54[1] The previous petition was filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court, CaseNo. 23CV011934.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver Page 3 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 4 of 4
Ruling
IN THE MATTER OF: EVAN PERLICK
Aug 26, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Civil Petition) |24CV010117
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010117: IN THE MATTER OF: EVAN PERLICK 08/27/2024 Hearing on Petition for Release of Property from Lien in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiffs/petitioners’ Evan Perlick and Michelle Perlick’s (collectively, “Petitioners”)petition for release of property from mechanic’s lien is GRANTED.Petitioners request the Court order the release of the Mechanic’s Lien on propertylocated at 9252 Orangevale Ave., Orangevale, California, on the ground respondentMark Garcia (“Respondent”) has failed to bring an action to enforce the lien within 90days after the recordation of the claim of lien as required by Civil Code section 8460.A motion to release a mechanic’s lien under Civil Code section 8480 is limited toreleasing stale claims based on the failure to file a lawsuit within 90 days of recordingthe lien. A petition for release of lien based on failure to file a lawsuit within 90 daysrequires a certified copy of the claim of lien to be attached to the petition. (Civil Code §8484(a).) Petitioners have attached a certified copy of the lien to the Petition. (Exh. 1.)Civil Code section 8486(b) requires that the petitioner serve a copy of the petition and anotice of hearing on the claimant at least 15 days before the hearing. Service shall bemade in the same manner as service of summons, or by certified or registered mail,postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the claimant as provided inSection 8108. (Civil Code § 8486(b).) Petitioners have satisfied the service requirementas provided in Section 8108.The owner of property, or the owner of any interest in the property, subject to a claim oflien may petition the court for an order to release the property from the claim of lien ifthe claimant has not commenced an action to enforce the lien within the time providedin Section 8460. (Civil Code § 8480(a).)Petitioners have established they are the owner of real property located at 9252Orangevale Ave., Orangevale, California (the “Property”). (Petition at ¶ 1.)On March 20, 2023, in the Official Records of Sacramento County, California,Respondent recorded a claim of mechanics lien against the Property. The lien wasrecorded as Document #202303200004 in the amount of $39,850 for construction of anadditional dwelling unit. A certified copy of the Mechanics’ Lien (Claim of Lien) isattached to the Petition as Exhibit 1.Respondent failed to bring an action to enforce the lien within 90 days after therecordation of the lien, as required by Code Civil Code section 8460. No action hasbeen filed to foreclose the lien; no extension of credit has been recorded; and the timeperiod during which suit can be brought to foreclose the lien has expired. Petitionerssent Respondent a written demand on September 25, 2023, to remove the lien, but Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010117: IN THE MATTER OF: EVAN PERLICK 08/27/2024 Hearing on Petition for Release of Property from Lien in Department 54Respondent is unwilling to do so. (Petition at ¶ 6.)Petitioners have established the grounds for the requested relief.Respondent has filed an untimely opposition on August 19, 2024, which was only sixcourt days prior to the hearing in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.Despite its untimeliness, the Court has reviewed the opposition and concludes it doesnot materially affect the outcome of this motion as Respondent does not raise anyargument or legal authority establishing the petition should not be granted for failure totimely enforce the lien within 90 days.The Court therefore grants the petition and the subject real property is ordered releasedfrom the lien. (Civ. Code §§ 8460(a), 8488(b).)Petitioners are also entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (Civ.Code § 8488(c).) Petitioners have not requested any amount of fees and costs andindicate such reasonable amount will be determined by motion after entry of judgment.Petitioners shall submit a proposed order for the Court’s signature pursuant to CaliforniaRules of Court, Rule. 3.1312.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by videoconference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements forrequesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010117: IN THE MATTER OF: EVAN PERLICK 08/27/2024 Hearing on Petition for Release of Property from Lien in Department 54Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.PdfA Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s ApprovedOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests acourt reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and itmust be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an officialreporter will be provided. Page 3 of 3
Ruling
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, vs ORSBURN, et al.
Aug 26, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Personal Injury/Property Dama...) |24CV006833
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV006833: FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, vs ORSBURN, et al. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiff Farmers Insurance Exchange’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel defendant KathyOsburn (“Defendant”) to serve verified initial responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’sForm Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand forProduction, Set One, is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.Plaintiff served the subject discovery on Defendant on October 9, 2023, and Defendantdid not provide any responses.Defendant shall serve verified initial responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s FormInterrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Production,Set One, no later than September 10, 2024.Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED because the motion was not opposed.Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) purports to authorize sanctions if amotion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing thisdiscovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed.Any order imposing sanctions under the California Rules of Court must conform to theconditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (Trans-ActionCommercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However,repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court tofind an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (LagunaAuto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481.)The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rulesof Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video Page 1 of 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV006833: FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, vs ORSBURN, et al. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production in Department 54conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements forrequesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the SacramentoSuperior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.PdfA Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s ApprovedOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests acourt reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and itmust be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an officialreporter will be provided. Page 2 of 2
Ruling
Rebecca Wu vs. Gina Carreon
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Wrongful Termination) |34-2018-00241694-CU-WT-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2018-00241694-CU-WT-GDS: Rebecca Wu vs. Gina Carreon 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 53Tentative RulingNOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2018-00241694-CU-WT-GDS: Rebecca Wu vs. Gina Carreon 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 53will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.TENTATIVE RULING:Defendants Gina Carreon, Steve Martinez, and Linda Fowler’s (“Defendants”) motion todismiss is GRANTED, as follows.Plaintiff Rebecca Wu filed her complaint on October 1, 2018. Defendants move todismiss this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) sections 583.310 and583.360 for Plaintiff’s failure to bring the action to trial within five years. Defendants alsomove to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CCP section 583.250 for Plaintiff’s failure toserve the summons and complaint within three years.The Court will address the motion to dismiss pursuant to CCP sections 583.310 and583.360 first, as it is dispositive.“An action must be brought to trial within five years after it is commenced against adefendant, and if not, dismissal is mandatory on the motion of any party or on thecourt’s own motion. ([CCP] §§ 583.310, 583.360, subd. (a).)” (Bank of Am. v. SuperiorCourt (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1000, 1010.) Dismissal is mandatory and not subject toextension, excuse, or exception, except as expressly provided by statute. (Code of Civ.Proc., § 583.360, subd. (b).) In computing the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: (a) [t]he jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended; (b) [p]rosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined; (c) bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile.(CCP § 583.340.)The determination 'of whether the prosecution of an action was indeed impossible,impracticable, or futile during any period of time, and hence, the determination ofwhether the impossibility exception to the five-year statute applies, is a matter within thetrial court's discretion.' (Sanchez v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1262,1271.) 'What is impossible, impracticable or futile must be determined in light of all thecirc*mstances in the individual case, including the acts and conduct of the parties andthe nature of the proceedings themselves.' (Moran v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d229, 238.) Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2018-00241694-CU-WT-GDS: Rebecca Wu vs. Gina Carreon 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 53Defendants argue that, at the latest, the five-year statute expired on July 19, 2024, fiveyears, six months, and 109 days after Plaintiff filed her complaint. This date accounts forCOVID-related rules that applied state-wide and in Sacramento County.The Court agrees.During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Judicial Council adopted Emergency Rulespertaining to civil matters. Pertinent here, Rule 10 of the Emergency Rules provides that“[n]otwithstanding any other law, including Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, forall civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020, the time in which to bring a civil action totrial is extended by six months, for a total of five years and six months.” (CRC, AppendixI, Emergency Rule 10.) In addition, civil jury trials were suspended by the SacramentoSuperior Court from March 17, 2020 until January 4, 2021 as a result of the COVID-19pandemic, during which time the Court finds it was impossible, impracticable, or futilewithin the meaning of CCP section 583.340, subdivision (c) for Plaintiff to bring theaction to trial. Thus, this time must also be excluded from the calculation to the extent itexceeds Emergency Rule 10’s six-month extension. The difference between the sixmonths provided in Emergency Rule 10 and the 293 days between March 17, 2020 andJanuary 4, 2021 is 109 days.Here, the complaint was filed on October 1, 2018. Five years, six months, and 109 daysfrom that date is July 19, 2024.Plaintiff opposes the motion; however, she does not show that it was “impossible,impracticable, or futile” for her to bring the case to trial for additional periods of time thanthose discussed above.For the stated reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. Given the above, theCourt need not reach the alternate request to dismiss the action for failure to serve thesummons and complaint within three years.Defendants shall submit a formal order of dismissal, pursuant to California Rules ofCourt, rule 3.1312. Page 3 of 3
Document
ESTATE OF: EDWARD P FREIDBERG
Aug 27, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Letters of Administration) |Probate |24PR002505
Document
ESTATE OF: CHRISTY HOLDREN
Aug 27, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Letters of Administration) |Probate |24PR002504
Document
IN THE MATTER OF: CHARLES W. HARVEY
Aug 28, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Petition (Other)) |Probate |24PR002535
Document
ESTATE OF: CHRISTY HOLDREN
Aug 27, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Letters of Administration) |Probate |24PR002504
Document
GUARDIANSHIP OF: LUIS FERNANDO VALLE CASTRO
Aug 29, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Guardianship - Person) |Probate |24PR002553
Document
ESTATE OF: CHRISTY HOLDREN
Aug 27, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Letters of Administration) |Probate |24PR002504
Document
IN RE: THE VIRGINIA M. RINGOR LIVING TRUST
Aug 30, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Trust Petitions) |Probate |24PR002580
Document
IN THE MATTER OF: CHARLES W. HARVEY
Aug 28, 2024 |John P. Winn |(Petition (Other)) |Probate |24PR002535
