Tentative Rulings

The Tentative Rulings for Thursday, July 23, 2026, are:

Re:              Abarca Carranza, Leticia vs. Vertical Foods, LLC.

Case No.:     VCU313255

Date:           July 23, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:       Motion for Final Approval 

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion; to set the Final Compliance Hearing for February 25, 2027; 8:30 am; D1.

Facts and Analysis

Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement, attorneys’ fees, costs, enhancement award, LWDA payment and class certification for settlement purposes came on for hearing on July 23, 2026.  The Court finds and rules as follows:

On June 26, 2026, the settlement administrator Phoenix Settlement Administrators, through its Case Manager, filed a declaration detailing the following events.

On January 13, 2026, the administrator  received a data file regarding 215 potential class members from Defendant’s counsel with names, contact information, social security numbers and relevant employment information.

On February 9, 2026, after the administrator processed the names through the National Change of Address Database and updated the list with any updated addresses located, the administrator sent class notice by mail to 215 members, with seventeen (17) notices returned as undeliverable. Updated addresses for seven (7) members were obtained and notices were remailed. Therefore, ten (10) notices have been deemed undeliverable.

Class members had sixty (60) days, until April 10, 2026 to submit objections, disputes and/or requests for exclusions. Zero (0) requests for exclusion and zero (0) valid objections have been received from class members. Therefore, all 215 Class Members or 100% of the Class will participate in the settlement.

The court presumes the settlement is fair and reasonable given (a) that it was reached through arms-length bargaining at mediation, (b) that there was sufficient time for investigation and discovery since commencement of litigation (c) class counsel have particularized experience with the claims at issue in the case, and (d) there appear to be no disputes or objections.  (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4^th 1794, 1802.) 

A net settlement amount of $170,199.82 is available to pay to the class members in accordance with the terms of settlement. The highest class portion to be paid is approximately $5,454.60, the lowest portion to be paid is approximately $4.65 and the average payment is $842.09.

The Court believes basic information about the nature and magnitude of the claims in question and the basis for concluding that the consideration being paid for the release of those claims represents a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, in accordance with Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4^th 116, 133.  This case involved extensive informal discovery and investigation of disputed claims, including review and analysis by counsel and experts.  The settlement avoids significant risks and delay that would result from further litigation of the case, which would include, amongst other matters, certification proceedings, trial, and the possibility of further delay and cost resulting from appeals.

Class counsel has provided an updated declaration in support of the requests for attorney fees representing 35% of the gross settlement fund of $333,639.53 or $116,773.84. The Court notes the escalator clause in the settlement agreement was triggered which increased the gross settlement fund after preliminary approval.

Counsel indicates that the firm has spent 209 total hours at rates ranging from $1,109 (182 hours), $625 (12 hours) and $508 (15 hours). (Declaration of Brown ¶22.) The Court notes it preliminary approved Counsel Brown’s rate at $839 and therefore will utilize this rate. As such, the Court calculates an adjusted lodestar of $167,818, resulting in a negative multiplier of .7.

Counsel has additionally provided sufficient cost information indicating actual costs incurred in the amount of $20,665.88. (Declaration of Brown ¶24.)

The Court believes the requested attorney fees and costs appear reasonable under the circumstances. Additionally, counsel has provided a sufficient declaration to demonstrate adequate previous experience with class actions to further support the reasonableness of the award.

The settlement administrator has provided, in the declaration describing the work it has performed on the case, a value of services totaling $8,000. (Declaration of Islas ¶17.) The Court believes the amount requested as compensation for the administrator appears reasonable. 

The settlement agreement designates distribution of unclaimed settlement proceeds to California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 384.

The Court previously approved a representative payment of $5,000 and finds that the requested enhancement payment is appropriate under the circumstances.

Finally, the Court confirms its conditional certification of the settlement class. The Court finds no significant events have occurred that would cause it to change its prior determination that the settlement class met all requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 for certification for settlement purposes at the time it granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval.

On review of the declarations and pleadings submitted, the Court finds, given the established presumption that the settlement is fair and reasonable under the circumstances of this case, and, particularly, given the absence of any objection or opposition following the class notice, that the settlement is fair and reasonable and that the motion for final approval should be, and is hereby, granted.

Therefore, the following deductions from the gross settlement of  $333,639.53 are approved as follows:

Approved Court Approved Attorney Fees (35%):	$116,773.84
Approved Attorney Costs (actually incurred):	$20,665.88
Approved Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff :	$5,000.00
Approved Settlement Administrator Costs	$8,000.00
Approved Total PAGA Penalties	$20,000.00
Approved Net Settlement Amount	$163,199.81

The Court shall enter its order of final approval and judgment in this case on the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff on June 26, 2026.

Final Compliance Hearing is set for February 25, 2027; 8:30 am; D1.

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

Re:              Synchrony Bank vs. Sharp, Savanna M

Case No.:     VCL299649

Date:           July 23, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:       Motion for Entry of Judgment re: Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6

Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion; OSC hearing is dismissed.

Facts

In this complaint for open book account, Plaintiff filed a notice of conditional settlement pursuant to a stipulation. Defendant acknowledged being obligated to Plaintiff for the principal amount of $5,319.90 and that this amount would be paid via $100 monthly payments commencing July 4, 2024 and thereafter $344 payments per month.

In the event of default, the stipulation indicates that Plaintiff is entitled to entry of judgment for the judgment amount noted above, less any credits, plus costs and fees incurred as to enforcing the terms of the settlement.

The stipulation indicates that the Court shall retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. However, the Court notes that this matter has not been dismissed and the Court has not lost jurisdiction over the parties and this matter.

Plaintiff indicates that Defendant has made payments totaling $1,100.00.

Plaintiff, therefore, seeks judgment entered in the amount of $4,642.35 consisting of the principal balance of $5,319.90 less $1,100 in credits plus costs of $422.45.

Authority and Analysis

Section 664.6 (a) states: 

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

“The court’s retention of jurisdiction under section 664.6 includes jurisdiction over both the parties and the case itself, that is, both personal and subject matter jurisdiction.” (Lofton v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (2014) 230 Cal.App.4^th 1050, 1061.) “Section 664.6 permits the trial court judge to enter judgment on a settlement agreement without the need for a new lawsuit.” (Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4^th 1355, 1360.)

As indicated above, the Court retains jurisdiction over the parties and this matter and therefore is prepared to “enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”

Defendant appears to have breached the settlement, based upon the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel and the Court, having no opposition, grants the motion and enters judgment in the amount requested of $4,642.35 consisting of the principal balance of $5,319.90 less $1,100 in credits plus costs of $422.45.

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

Re:              Capital One N.A. vs. Montejano, Elaine

Case No.:     VCL318184

Date:           July 23, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:       Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Default

Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion

Facts

In this matter, Plaintiff sues Defendant Elaine Montejano for a single cause of action for breach of contract, alleging $14,779.15 in damages.

On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a proof of service purporting to demonstrate personal service of the summons and complaint occurred on March 18, 2025 at 4:18 pm at 1600 S Greene Ave Apt 133, Dinuba, CA as follows: “ELAINE MONTEJANO, I delivered the documents to ELAINE MONTEJANO with identity confirmed by subject stating their name. The individual accepted service with direct delivery. The individual appeared to be a black haired Hispanic female contact 25-35 years of age, 5'6"-5'8" tall and weighing 160-180 lbs.” A registered California process server completed the proof of service.

On March 18, 2026, default was entered. On March 18, 2026, default judgment was entered in the amount of $15,222.76.

On June 23, 2026, Defendant filed this motion to set aside default and default judgment. In support, Defendant states “The proof of service states documents were served to me on 03-18-25 at 4:18 pm which is untrue. I was not home at the time and commuting from work out of town during this time.”

Notice of this motion was provided to Plaintiff’s attorney. However, it is unclear if this motion was served on Plaintiff.

No opposition appears to have been filed.

Authority and Analysis

The Court has broad discretion to set aside the entry of default, default judgment, or a dismissal, but that discretion can be exercised only if the defendant establishes a proper ground for relief, by the proper procedure and within the set time limits.  

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides, in relevant part: 

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. 

Here, there is not issue as to the timing of the motion.

“A ‘mistake’ exists when a person, under some erroneous conviction of law or fact, does, or omits to do, some act which, but for the erroneous conviction, he would not have done, or omitted. It may arise either from unconsciousness, ignorance, forgetfulness, imposition, or misplaced confidence.” (Salazar v. Steelman (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d 402, 405, 410.) 

“Surprise” is defined as “some condition or situation in which a party to a cause is unexpectedly placed to his injury, without any default or negligence of his own, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.” (Miller v. Lee (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 10, 16.)

Further, “excusable neglect” has been defined as “neglect that might have been the act or omission of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.” (Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.App.3d 427, 435.)

“Finally, as for inadvertence or neglect, ‘[t]o warrant relief under section 473 a litigant's neglect must have been such as might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances. The inadvertence contemplated by the statute does not mean mere inadvertence in the abstract. If it is wholly inexcusable it does not justify relief.’ ” (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206.)” (Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 215, 230.)

However, under Evidence Code section 647: “[t]he return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.”  (Evid. Code § 647.) Under Evidence Code section 604: “[t]he effect of a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence is to require the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence, in which case the trier of fact shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the presumption.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the drawing of any inference that may be appropriate.”  (Evid. Code § 604.)

Here, the proof of service establishes the rebuttable presumption of service.

The motion contains an insufficient explanation to rebut the presumption established by the proof of service.

Next, subsection (b) additionally requires the filing of “a copy of the answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action.” No such document appears lodged with the motion.

Therefore, the Court denies the motion.

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

Re:              Alba Bustamente, Estefani Carolina vs. Kaweah Delta Health Care, Inc

Case No.:     VCU316413

Date:           July 23, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David C. Mathias

Motion:       Kaweah’s Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint

Tentative Ruling: The motion was not formally filed until July 16, 2026.  Counsel is to appear to reschedule the hearing date.  Electronic appearances are approved.  

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

Re:              Sumida, DDS, Steven vs. Dental Board of California

Case No.:     VCU333197

Date:           July 23, 2026

Time:          8:30 A.M. 

Dept.           1-The Honorable David Mathias

Motion:       Demurrer to the Petition for Writ of Mandate

Tentative Ruling:  To sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. CMC is off calendar.  Status of Judgment hearing set for October 6, 2026; 8:30 am; D1.

Petitioner Steven Sumida, DDS (Petitioner) is seeking mandamus review of a final administrative decision by the Dental Board of California (Board) that dismissed, in part, and affirmed, in part, a civil citation the Board issued to Petitioner. The administrative decision was issued following a hearing held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Board adopted the ALJ’s proposed decision.

Petitioner challenges the ALJ’s affirmance of a citation, insofar as it involved a claimed violation of Business and Professions Code section 1684.1, subdivision (a)(1), and section 1018.05, subdivision (a) of the California Code of Regulations, for the failure to timely provide a patient’s dental records when requested by the Board.  Petitioner apparently does not challenge the ALJ’s determination, insofar as the ALJ dismissed another claimed violation of Business and Professions Code 654.3.

As to the asserted patient records violation, the following undisputed evidence was presented to the ALJ:

In a letter on December 14, 2021, the Board demanded the complete patient records for a patient that had sent a complaint to the Board.  The Board sent a second letter on January 5, 2022, directing petitioner to provide the patient records within 15 days.  (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 1684.1, subd. (a)(1) [a licensee who fails to comply with a request for dental records within 15 days is subject to imposition of a civil penalty for each day the licensee fails to comply, up to a maximum civil penalty amount].)

On January 18, 2022, petitioner provided records to the Board, including a signed declaration averring that the records were the patient’s complete records. 

Later, on July 5, 2024, petitioner produced to the Board approximately 20 additional pages of records that had not previously been provided on January 18, 2022. 

On October 2, 2024, the Executive Officer of the Board issued a citation for two violations of the Business and Professions Code, including, as relevant here, section 1684.1, subd. (a)(1) for failing to timely provide patient records requested by the Board. 

As to asserted patient’s records violation, petitioner testified at the hearing solely by repeating a statement that he was not responsible for the citation because the underlying events had occurred four years prior.   Petitioner refused to answer questions on cross-examination, except by repeating his statement. 

The ALJ interpreted petitioner’s statement as an assertion of a statute of limitations defense.  The ALJ observed that the challenged citation was issued on October 2, 2024, less than three years from January 2022, and that Business and Professions Code section 1670.2, subdivision (a), provides that any proceeding by the Board against a licensee shall be commenced within three years after the Board discovers the act or omission giving rise to the proceeding.  The ALJ accordingly found the citation was timely issued as to the asserted patient’s records violation. 

The court views this evidence as undisputed based on petitioner having presented the ALJ’s Decision and Order reflecting the foregoing, and on petitioner having not asserted any dispute as to any of what is reflected.

DISCUSSION

In his petition for writ of administrative mandate, petitioner now appears to maintain that he submitted complete records to the Board in January 2022, though, notably, petitioner is not particularly clear about what he is asserting. 

Petitioner does, though, clearly assert that his repeated statement to the board “did not refer to the statute of limitations,” but less coherently, he asserts that his statement referred “to the board’s filing system.”  Petitioner also vaguely states he “sent another copy of the records as requested.”  Petitioner references pages of an attached copy of the ALJ’s Decision and Order, which includes various statements of the Board’s evidence. 

Petitioner references one page that includes a statement, underlined by petitioner, that, “[o]n January 18, 2022, respondent [i.e., petitioner in this case] provided records to the Board, including a signed declaration certifying that the records were [the subject patient’s] complete patient records.”

Petitioner then references another page that includes a statement, underlined by petitioner, that “Respondent [i.e., petitioner] believed they [certain of the subject patient’s records that an investigator had informed petitioner had not been included amongst records he provided on January 18, 2022] were included with the records respondent provided in January 2022.” 

Petitioner appears to suggest that the aforementioned statements reflected evidence, in some unidentified way, that petitioner ultimately timely provided the patient records demanded by the Board on January 5, 2022. 

The Board demurrers to petitioner’s petition on the grounds that petitioner fails to state facts sufficient to support his request for writ relief. 

Additionally, the Board demurrers on the ground that, insofar as petitioner purports to assert some challenge to the asserted patient records violation beyond the rote repeating of the statement that he was not responsible for the citation because the underlying events had occurred four years prior, petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by refusing to elaborate whatever that challenge was intended to be during the subject administrative proceedings. 

Petitioner responds to the demurer with an opposition that appears to include a new assertion.  In pertinent part, petitioner states:  “Dr Sumida determines what records are in his files. Dr Sumida’s files averaged 15 pages each and now have been reduced to 10 pages. It is not possible for 20 pages to be missing from the record he sent to the Dental Board in 2022.”

Petitioner, elsewhere, flatly asserts there is “[n]o legal basis for the citation” and that “Records were timely submitted.”  He also argues that the ALJ’s interpretation of his rote repeated statement as a statute of limitations defense was a “[m]isinterpretation” that supplies “the statutory basis for the writ.”

ANALYSIS

On petition for writ of administrative mandate, the court’s inquiry is limited to “whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.)

Petitioner’s own petition and attached documents reflect uncontested evidence was received by the ALJ that petitioner failed to timely provide patient records in violation of Business and Professions Code section 1684.1, subdivision (a)(1), and that, confronted with this evidence, petitioner solely stated, as asserted in his petition, “that he is not responsible for the supposedly missing papers from 4 years ago.” 

Petitioner’s own pleading refutes that the Board “misinterpret[ed]” his evidence, and, instead, conclusively establishes that the Board gave the only evident colorable interpretation to the statement made by petitioner that it could—and, further, that it addressed that argument with reference to uncontroverted facts, not challenged during the course of the proceedings. 

While the court, on demurrer, takes the facts from the underlying petition as true, it also assumes the attachments to the petition are true, and “they take precedence over any conflicting allegations.”  (Nede Mgmt. Inc. v. Aspen American Ins. Co. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1127 [284 Cal.Rptr.3d 122].)

Here, the only facts alleged in the petition that could be construed to support writ relief are conclusory assertions that the ALJ’s determination was “invalid” because the Board “confirmed there was no violation” and that petitioner’s “evidence” was “misinterpreted at the hearing.” 

Petitioner’s attachments, however, establish to the contrary and take precedence over petitioner’s conflicting allegations. 

The court additionally agrees with the Board that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, insofar as he now purports to assert some challenge to the asserted patient’s records violation beyond his rote repeating of the statement, at the hearing before the ALJ, that he was not responsible for the citation because the underlying events had occurred four years prior. 

According to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the agency must be provided the “opportunity to receive and respond to articulated factual issues and legal theories before its actions are subjected to judicial review” (Park Area Neighbors v. Town of Fairfax (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1447 [35 Cal.Rptr.2d 334]).  It follows from this that, where a petitioner does not occasion opportunity to respond to an argument—because the petitioner fails or refuses to articulate that argument when the occasion is presented during administrative proceedings—the petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to that argument.   

Based on the foregoing, the court sustains the demurrer, and without leave to amend because petitioner fails to carry his burden to show any reasonable possibility of cure by further amendment.  (Lazar v. Hertz Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1501 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 368].)

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

Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding- Department 2

Examiner notes for probate matters calendared July 22, 2026, that allow for posting:

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

Case Number	Case Name	Type	Status	Comments
VPR054079	In the Matter of O'Dell, Lewis Arlin	Spousal Property Hearing	Appearance Required	Continued. Documents in order
VPR054013	In the Matter of Guerrero, Aurelio Acuna	Letters of Administration	Appearance Required	Previous issues remain
VPR054166	In the Matter of John J Maguire	Petition to Compel Accounting	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR051521	In the Matter of Kevin M. Engelsgaard	Accounting Hearing	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR053103	In the Matter of Otter, Barbara	Final Distribution Hearing	Appearance Required	Proposed Order:  statutory compensation to be ordered does not reflect statutory compensation requested in Petition
VPR053638	In the Matter of Hellwig Family Revocable Trust	Review Hearing	Appearance Required	Notice of Settlement filed
VPR054115	In the Matter of Emerick, Ralph Raymond	Appoint Temporary Conservator	Appearance Required	Capacity Declaration not filed
VPR054056	In the Matter of Singh Hayer, Simvir	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Documents in order
VPR051993	In the Matter of Mcdonald, Lola	OSC Hearing	Appearance Required	Bond not posted; letters not issued. Inventory & Appraisal, Accounting and Care Plan remain outstanding

Honorable Russell Burke Presiding- Department 19

Examiner notes for probate matters:

                                         Probate calendar for JULY 16, 2026

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

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

Case Number	Case Name	Type	Status	Comments
PPR054150	In the Matter of Smith, Carolyn Rae	Probate Will/Issue Letters	Appearance Required	Original will not lodged in case. Improper Notice of Hearing served, rather than Notice of Petition to Administer, DE-121.
PPR053976	In the Matter of Lemus Orozco, Yamilet	Appoint Conservator	Appearance Required	Notice of Hearing of appointment hearing with copy of the Petition required to be served
PPR048739	In the Matter of Luna, Guadalupe	Accounting Hearing - Conservatorship	Appearance Required	Documents in order
PPR053492	In the Matter of Broome, Justin Bryton	Contested Hearing - Conservatorship	Appearance Required	Documents in order

South County Justice Center & Visalia-County Civic Center

         SCJC- Honorable Russell Burke Presiding

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

Examiner notes for probate GUARDIANSHIP matters calendared  July  21, 2026  - July 23, 2026 that allow for posting:

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

Hearing Date & Time	Department Number	Case Number	Case Name	Comments
7/21/26 8:30 AM	Department 01	VPR053852	IMO L.R.S.	Status Conference           Need Proof of Deposit to be filed
7/21/26 8:30 AM	Department 09	VPR053080	IMO K.J.M	Need Inventory & Appraisal FINAL to be filed Petition needs Verification, Probate Code §1021 Notice of Hearing needs to be filed, Probate Code §1460
7/22/26 8:30 AM	Department 02	VPR053969	IMO C.G.V.	Need Notice of Hearing to be filed with proof of service on relatives named in the Petition for Appointment (Grandparents) were served with15 calendar days notice, as required by PROB Code §1460,1510, with a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Petition for Appointment DECLARATION of attendance of Guardianship Orientation needs to be filed
7/22/26 8:30 AM	Department 01	VPR050768	IMO A.A.	Review Hearing
7/22/26 10:00 AM	Department 01	VPR053085	IMO M.C.	Contested Hearing
7/23/26 8:30 AM	Department 01	VPR052053	IMO N.C.	Need Notice of Hearing to be filed with proof of service on relatives named in the Petition for TERMINATION (minors, parents, paternal & maternal grandparents) indicating they were served with15 calendar days notice, as required by Probate Code §1460