Probate Law & Motion

Court Call is not permitted for this calendar.

Advisements

If the tentative ruling is accepted, no appearance by Zoom 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. You must inform the clerk concerning your appearance choice: Zoom or in person. 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.

Unless notification to the probate clerk has been given as provided above, the tentative rulings shall become the rulings of the court at 3:15 p.m. on the day of the hearing. 

To Join Department 12 “Zoom” Online

• Navigate to website: https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1603772262
• Enter Meeting ID: 160 377 2262
• And Password: 419097

To Join Department 12 “Zoom” By Phone:

• Call: +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) and enter same meeting ID and password as listed above. 

Guide for Participating in Court Proceedings via Zoom for Dept 12:

• 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.

1. Matter of Clark 2001 Trust, dated April 24, 2001 and Amended March 2, 2021 and July 15, 2024
   25PR00434
   Motion to: (1) Compel Discovery Responses; and (2) Impose Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED as to all of the subject discovery requests. Tim Anderson’s (the “petitioner”) right to assert objections to the requests for production of documents is deemed waived pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §2031.300(a). The petitioner’s right to object to the interrogatories and any right to exercise the option to produce writings under CCP §2030.230 is waived pursuant to CCP §2030.290(a). The petitioner’s right to object to the requests for admissions is waived, and the matters specified in the requests are deemed admitted. CCP §§2033.280(a)&(b). Monetary sanctions are granted as prayed pursuant to CCP §§2023.010(d) and 2023.030(a).

Counsel for the movant is directed to lodge a proposed order that conforms to this ruling.

2. Estate of Brian Thomas Mitchell
   25PR00881
   Motion for Order Adjudicating and Enforcing Sealed Attorney’s Lien

Tentative Ruling: The motion is DENIED. Determination of the existence and validity of the lien, and adjudication of the claim on the lien, is in excess of the Court’s jurisdiction. Appellate courts have consistently held that the trial court in the underlying action has no jurisdiction to determine the existence or validity of an attorney's lien on the judgment. Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1171-1173. The rule that the trial court in the underlying action lacks jurisdiction to affect an attorney lien is founded on the fundamental principle that one who is not a party to a proceeding may not make a motion therein. Brown v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 320, 329–330.

Despite the numerous references to California Rules of Court Rules 2.550 and 2.551 there is no motion or application to seal any records properly before the Court.

***End of Tentative Rulings***