Skip to main content.

Probate Law & Motion

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

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.

Tentative Rulings

April 23, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.  

  1. Matter of The Urban Orchards Private Trust Dated October 30, 2020
    24PR00888
    Motion to Enforce Existing Confidentiality Orders and for Remedial Relief

Tentative Ruling: As stated in the Notice of Clarification, etc. filed April 7, 2026, the motion is moot and is DROPPED from calendar.

 

  1. Matter of Toral L. Solberg Trust
    24PR01089
    Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner’s Requests for Production Set No. One

Tentative Ruling: The motion is DENIED. The Court finds no basis to compel further responses or further production of documents. The Court also finds no basis to award sanctions to the movant.

          I.     Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 17

As for requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 17, the responding party responded: “Responding Party has produced all non-privileged documents in Responding Party’s possession, custody or control that are responsive to this request.” The moving party argues these responses are not compliant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §§2031.240(b)(1) and 2031.230. CCP §2031.240(b)(1) is inapplicable because the response is not an objection to all or part of the request. The response indicates that the party has previously provided the requested documents. This cannot be characterized as an objection. CCP §2031.230 is also inapplicable because the response is not a representation of an inability to comply. The party indicates they previously complied. This response is most properly categorized as a statement of compliance under CCP §2031.210(a)(1). The distinction between a “have complied” response as opposed to a “will comply” response is merely semantical. Overall, the response is legally sufficient. The petitioner’s assertions that other documents are available to be produced for the categories of requested items are based on assumptions that the responding party has additional documents, which assumptions are not supported.

          II.    Requests 6 and 7

Request six seeks “all Yahoo Mail DOCUMENTS from all the Decedent’s electronic mail accounts (including grandpatrol@yahoo.com).” Request number 7 seeks “all voice, text, and social media correspondence DOCUMENTS from the Decedent’s smartphones . . .” etc. The movant states that these documents would cover the time-period after 2003, which is 23 years worth of documents. Such a broad request covering such a long period of time is improper.  See Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 594. Even assuming there may be some relevance in showing that the deceased’s phone calls, emails, or text messages became less frequent or less sophisticated over a period of time, the request is still overly broad, in that the request is not tailored to seek relevant information nor is limited in scope to certain time periods, so the responding party would be required to divulge large amounts of irrelevant information or information that contains private information about third-parties. The objections to requests 6 and 7 are proper. CCP §§2017.010 and 2017.020.

          III.   Requests 8 and 9

The movant admits he has copies of the documents (other than those already provided by the responding party) he seeks through requests 8&9. So, these requests are moot.

           IV.   Requests 10, 16, and 19

The responses to these requests state an inability to comply after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in an effort to comply because no non-privileged documents responsive to the request are in her possession, custody, or control. This is a code compliant response pursuant to CCP §§2031.310(a)(2) and 2031.230. The Court finds no basis to conclude that the responding party could or should have provided the names and addresses of other people who may have this information. Further, as for request number 10, the movant has a copy of the specific document he requests here (the handwritten note attached as Exhibit C to his petition) so this aspect of the request is moot.

          V.     Request 18

This request seeks almost 20 years’ worth of information relating to payments the respondent made to the decedent or directly to any utility companies for the decedent’s home. The movant asserts the relevance of this information is to show that the respondent wanted to move back in with the decedent. The court finds this information has little to no relevance to the case alleged in the underlying petition. Even assuming there is some relevance here, the request is not sufficiently tailored to seek relevant information, and is overly broad. Furthermore, some documents were produced and are allegedly the only documents the respondent has related to this request. So, both the objection and the statement of compliance are proper and the Court finds no basis to compel further response or production. CCP §§2017.010 and 2017.020.

          VI.   Requests 20 and 21

Request 20 asks for the official mortgage summary or statement related to a townhome owned by the respondent. This information is irrelevant. The movant fails to assert any persuasive argument as to why this request would help gather information relevant to proving the underlying case. Request 21 asks for information related to rental income earned on the townhome owned by the respondent. Again, this information is irrelevant to the matters at hand in the underlying petition. Whether or not the respondent rented the town home, and how much she earned in renting the town home, is not relevant to this case. CCP §§2017.010 and 2017.020.

           

  1. Estate of Ramona Louise Crinella
    SPR097852
    Fixing Sanctions Amount following Ruling on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records

Tentative Ruling:  On March 26, 2026, the Honorable Jeanine B. Nadel, sitting on assignment in this Department, heard the Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records filed by Jack Weaver, Esq., on behalf of objector Frank Walburg.  The Court ruled as follows:

The motion is DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and CONTINUED in part as set forth below.

The motion seeks to quash in their entirety the Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records issued by Theresa Bloomquist to Brenda Martin and John B. Freitas on January 12, 2026 and served on January 23, 2026. These subpoenas were withdrawn per the withdrawal filed by Theresa Bloomquist on March 17, 2026. Therefore, the motion is DENIED as MOOT to the extent it seeks to quash the subpoenas.

 
The motion is GRANTED as to the request for sanctions. In making an order that the motion to quash is denied as moot, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. California Code of Civil Procedure §1987.2(a). As the motion is not opposed, the court cannot find that the motion was opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification as a basis for awarding sanctions. That said, the subpoenas request a broad category of documents and information, production of which would be unreasonably burdensome given that the documents and information requested were not relevant to any pending contested issue but were relevant only to matters that had already been adjudicated. Therefore, the Court finds the one or more of the requirements of the subpoena were oppressive, and awards sanctions on this basis pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1987.2(a).

The amount of sanctions remains uncertain, and counsel’s declaration in support does not provide a means to calculate an exact amount of sanctions requested. Therefore, the issue of the amount of sanctions to be awarded and the reasonableness of the amount requested is CONTINUED to April 23, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12. The movant must file and serve, at least ten (10) days prior to the continued hearing, a verified supplement requesting a specific amount of sanctions and providing sufficient factual support for the amount requested.

The matter is now before this Court for the purpose of fixing the amount of sanctions to be awarded pursuant to the ruling of Judge Nadel.  The ruling did not address an opportunity to file written opposition to the amount requested, and none has been filed.  However, the Court finds that Petitioner must be given an opportunity to oppose the amount, if so desired, and to the extent there was a belief that no opportunity was available as the ruling did not expressly provide one, this Court would entertain an objection made at the time of the hearing. 

In the absence of an objection, the amount of sanctions ordered by Judge Nadel is fixed in the amount of $10,034.39.  The ruling of Judge Nadel does not indicate whether the sanctions are imposed against the party or counsel or both. There is also no order after hearing signed by her. 

The Notice of Motion filed January 28, 2026 does not specify against whom the sanctions are sought, therefore this Court makes no order in that regard.  The ruling also does not set a time by which any sanctions must be paid and therefore this Court also makes no order in that regard.

 

***End of Tentative Rulings***

Was this helpful?

Yes No
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Was this helpful?