Jan 22, 2021
A A A

TENTATIVE RULINGS

Name Change Calendar

TENTATIVE RULINGS                 

Change of Name Calendar

Friday, January 22, 2021 1:30 p.m. – Hon. Jennifer V. Dollard   

Courtroom 18, 3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa

PLEASE NOTE: In accordance with the Addendum to First Amended Omnibus Order of the Presiding Judge issued May 27, 2020, only those persons with court hearings in criminal actions shall enter a Sonoma County Superior Court facility.  Until further notice, all matters set for hearing in this courtroom shall be heard remotely through Zoom.  No party or representative of a party may appear personally in Courtroom 18.  CourtCall is not permitted for this calendar.

 

If the tentative ruling is accepted, no appearance is necessary via Zoom unless otherwise indicated. 

Name Change

TO JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE,
FOR D18:

MeetingID: 838-5609-8726

Password: 000169

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83856098726?pwd=WEI3K1BPRCswSk0ZYSs4VUw1OU5ydz09

TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE,
By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed for each calendar):
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)

 

Guide for participating in court proceedings via Zoom in Department 18.

-After joining the meeting and checking in with the clerk, please mute your audio when not speaking. This helps keep background noise to a minimum.

-Be mindful of background noise when your microphone is not muted.  Avoid activities that could create additional noise, such as shuffling papers.

-Position your camera properly if you choose to use a web camera. Be sure it is in a stable position and focused at eye level, if possible.  Make sure everything visible in the frame is appropriate for an appearance in court.

-If a confidential session becomes necessary it is incumbent on you to ensure you are able to participate from a private location so that unauthorized people cannot overhear or see the proceedings.

-Chat is enabled for the sharing of documents among participants and the court and to allow attorneys to communicate individually with each other or their clients only. No chat messages should be sent privately to the court as it would amount to an unauthorized ex parte communication. Neither should chat messages be sent to all participants unless directed by the court.

-The recording function has been disabled. Remember, the prohibition against recording court proceedings, even remote ones, remains.

-Be patient.  Check in will take more time and the experience from those who have tried this before is that proceedings are a little slower generally.

***************************************************************************

If the tentative ruling is accepted, no appearance is necessary unless otherwise indicated.  You must notify the probate clerk at (707) 521-6893 if you wish to be heard in response to the tentative ruling.  Any interested party who wishes to be heard in opposition to a petition must notify all other parties of the intent to appear.  Both notifications must be completed no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day immediately preceding the day of the hearing.

 

 
Change of Name or Gender
 
1. SRL
PETITION OF
BRADLEY MOORE
SPR-095165
 
CHANGE OF NAME
TENTATIVE RULING: Approved.
 
 
 
2. SRL
PETITION OF NICOLETTE BECK, MICHAEL HAYS
SPR-095179
 
CHANGE OF NAME
TENTATIVE RULING: Approved.
 
 
 
3. SRL
PETITION OF
NICOLE GONZALEZ
SPR-095183
 
CHANGE OF NAME
TENTATIVE RULING: The jurat (oath) on the Petition is executed in a manner that appears to attempt to avoid the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California by including the disclaimer “UCC 1-201 & UCC 1-308”. Though this has no legal effect, the failure of Petitioner to unequivocally acknowledge they are invoking the potential penalty of perjury by submission of the Petition and the statements contained therein renders the verification insufficient. The Petition is therefore denied without prejudice.
 
If, however, the Petitioner wishes to take the oath at the hearing without such qualification, they may follow the procedure to call to request to appear and the Court will administer the oath at the hearing to cure the defect. In that event, the Court would grant the name change to the extent it changes the name of Nicole Antionette Gonzalez to Marie Gabriella Bey. The Court finds the inclusion of the additional matter listed on the petition is likely to confuse and mislead and is not an appropriate exercise of the Court’s authority. The Court also notes that the granting of the petition would not in any way validate or give effect to any of the statements contained in the declaration attached to the Petition. If granted, the Petitioner is ordered to submit a [proposed] order that conforms to this ruling and is legible.
 
 
 
4. SRL
PETITION OF
DEMOND BATTIEST
SPR-095185
CHANGE OF NAME
 
TENTATIVE RULING: The jurat (oath) on the Petition is executed in a manner that appears to attempt to avoid the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California by including the disclaimer “Without Prejudice UCC 1-201 UCC 1-308”. Though this has no legal effect, the failure of Petitioner to unequivocally acknowledge they are invoking the potential penalty of perjury by submission of the Petition and the statements contained therein renders the verification insufficient. The Petition is therefore denied without prejudice.
 
If, however, the Petitioner wishes to take the oath at the hearing without such qualification, they may follow the procedure to call to request to appear and the Court will administer the oath at the hearing to cure the defect. In that event, the Court would grant the name change to the extent it changes the name of Demond Leroy Battiest to Hiramu El Kenyatta Bey. (This is the name in the publication and Order to Show Cause. The Petition has the name spelled as Hiramu El Kenvatta Bev, which the Court presumes is a typographical error. If it is not, however, a new OSC would have to issue and a new publication be completed with the different spelling before the petition could be granted.) The Court finds the inclusion of the additional matter listed on the Petition is likely to confuse and mislead and is not an appropriate exercise of the Court’s authority. The Court also notes that the granting of the Petition would not in any way validate or give effect to any of the statements contained in the declaration attached to the Petition. If granted, the Petitioner is ordered to submit a [proposed] order that conforms to this ruling and is legible.
 
 
*This is the end of these Tentative Rulings*
© 2021 Superior Court of Sonoma County