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.      Estate of Ramona Louise Crinella

              SPR097852

     Motion to Vacate Judgment for Nonsuit

     Tentative Ruling: The motion is DENIED. The motion for discretionary relief is untimely because it was not brought within a reasonable time under the circumstances pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §473(b). There has been significant activity in this case since May 24, 2024, and the petitioner has been an active participant in this case. Estate administration has been underway for nine months. Whether or not anything needs to be “unwound,” given all of the intervening activity, it was not reasonable for the movant to wait so long to bring a motion for discretionary relief under CCP §473(b) to set aside the May 24, 2024 judgment of nonsuit. The movant’s explanation and evidence regarding the reason for the six-month delay is not sufficient to justify the delay.

     Mandatory relief under CCP §473(b) is not available here, despite the timeliness of the motion for mandatory relief. The judgment of nonsuit is not the equivalent of a “dismissal” for the purposes of the mandatory relief provisions of CCP §473(b). CCP §581c(c) provides that if a motion for a judgment of nonsuit is granted, unless the court in its order for judgment otherwise specifies, the judgment of nonsuit operates as an adjudication upon the merits. A “dismissal” for the purposes of the mandatory relief provisions of CCP §473(b) must be the procedural equivalent of a default – i.e., a plaintiff failing to respond. Noceti v. Whorton (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066. In Noceti, the court found the judgment entered in favor of the defendant was not a “dismissal” for the purposes of the mandatory relief provision of CCP §473(b), even though the plaintiff had failed to appear for trial entirely, because the trial court considered the “entire file” in the context of an uncontested trial. Noceti v. Whorton (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1067–1068. Here, given the participation of the movant, the resulting judgment for nonsuit was not the type of dismissal by default that is subject to mandatory relief under CCP §473(b).

     The Court also finds that the May 8, 2024 sanctions order does not constitute a “dismissal” subject to mandatory relief under CCP §473(b). While the evidentiary sanction prevented movant from testifying, it did not dismiss her petition, and did not prevent her from calling witnesses to authenticate the will. So, the May 8, 2024 sanctions did not defeat Ms. Bloomquist’s case, and the Court does not find that it can be properly characterized as a “dismissal” that is subject to mandatory relief under CCP §473(b).

     Therefore, neither discretionary nor mandatory relief under CCP §473(b) is available here, and the motion is denied.

     The request to vacate the judgment and “re-enter” it for the sole purpose of reviving the deadline by which to file an appeal is denied.

     Counsel for Frank Walburg shall submit a proposed order after hearing that conforms to this ruling.

***End of Tentative Rulings***