Probate Law & Motion

PLEASE NOTE:  Masks need not be worn in the courthouse if you are fully vaccinated.

Persons are considered vaccinated two weeks after the final dose in a primary series of vaccinations.

All unvaccinated persons entering any Sonoma County Superior Courthouse, including any remote jury selection location, shall wear a face covering at all times compliant with all California State Health Orders and CAL/OSHA standards which must completely cover both the nose and mouth. 

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 23 “Zoom” Online

• Navigate to website: https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1608254529
• Enter Meeting ID: 160 825 4529
• And Password: 611386

To Join Department 23 “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 23:

• 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. Simoncini v. Luci
   SCV-270908
   Motion For Reconsideration Of The Court’s Ex Parte Order Of April 17, 2024 Compelling Arbitration And Selection Of Arbitrator

Tentative Ruling: The motion is DENIED.

The California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §1008 aspect of the motion is procedurally defective for failure to include the required affidavit and is denied for that reason. A CCP §1008 motion that fails to include the required affidavit is invalid. Branner v. Regents of University of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048.

Regarding the Court’s inherent power to reconsider its own orders/rulings, the Court accepts that it has such power, but otherwise does not see this as a basis for granting the present motion. Although section 1008 limits the circumstances in which a party may seek reconsideration, it does not limit the court's ability, on its own motion, to reconsider its prior interim orders so it may correct its own errors. Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Bennett (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 985, 1000. To do so, the Court must give the parties notice that it may do so and a reasonable opportunity to litigate the question. Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1097. A trial court has inherent power to reconsider an interim ruling on its own motion. This authority derives from the judiciary's fundamental, constitutionally mandated function to resolve specific controversies between parties. Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Bennett (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 985, 1000. Although a motion for reconsideration that is unsupported by new legal authority or new evidence violates §1008, such a motion may inspire the trial court to reconsider its previous decision on its own motion. Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Bennett (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 985, 1001 (citing In re Marriage of Barthold (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1301.) It should not matter whether the judge has an unprovoked flash of understanding in the middle of the night or acts in response to a party's suggestion, if a court believes one of its prior interim orders was erroneous, it should be able to correct that error no matter how it came to acquire that belief. Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108.

Here, the reconsideration of the April 17, 2024, order was not brought about on the Court’s own motion. The case law is clear that the Court can reconsider prior rulings/orders on its own motion, but not that a party can move the Court to exercise such authority. In Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, the California Supreme Court held that a trial court erred in granting a procedurally defective motion, even though the trial court could reconsider its previous rulings on its own motion. See Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1109. The moving party cannot rely on the Court’s inherent powers to circumvent the procedural requirements of CCP §1008.

This Court is frankly dismayed to see the current posture of this case more than three months down the road from its April 17, 2024, Order. The directions from that Order should be complied with immediately.

Patrick J. Wingfield, Esq. is ordered to lodge an updated proposed order that conforms to this ruling.

2. Matter of the Harwood Family Revocable Trust, dated June 19, 1995
   SPR093618
   Motion to Exclude the Testimony Of Petitioner’s Expert Witness, Serggio Carlo Lanata, M.D., M.S., Pursuant to CCP §§2034.300, et seq., Or In The Alternative, Motion to Compel Expert’s Deposition And Sanctions, Pursuant to CCP §§2025.450, et seq.

Tentative Ruling: The motion to exclude is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged July 2, 2024, but will strike proposed orders numbers 2 and 3. California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §2034.300(d) requires the exclusion of the witness if the witness has not been made available for deposition in accordance with Article 3 (commencing with Section 2034.410.) As CCP §2034.415 (which is part of Article 3) requires the production of relevant materials three business days prior to the deposition, by failing to comply with CCP §2034.415, the nonmoving party has subjected the witness to mandatory exclusion pursuant to CCP §2034.300(d). Given the repeated scheduling of depositions and the nonmoving party’s repeated failure to produce the witness, or failure to produce associated materials/documents, the nonmoving party’s conduct gives the appearance of gamesmanship. Staub v. Kiley (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1447.

The Court has considered the untimely opposition. Trial courts are authorized to consider late-filed papers for good cause if there is no undue prejudice.  Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 602, 613. The circumstances surrounding an untimely opposition should be viewed under the strong policy of the law favoring the disposition of cases on the merits. Id.

3. Conservatorship of Shirley Gee
   SPR098013
   Motion for Preliminary Injunction Enjoining Foreclosure Sale

Tentative Ruling: This motion seeks to prevent the foreclosure sale of 4472 Hollingsworth Circle, Rohnert Park, CA (the “Property”.) On June 14, 2024, this Court confirmed the private sale of the Property to Casey Quinn, a single man. The Court finds this motion to be moot, and the motion is DROPPED from calendar.

***End Of Tentative Rulings***