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

• 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 The Tardibuono Family Trust
   26PR00122
   Preliminary Injunction

Tentative Ruling: All requests for judicial notice filed by the petitioners are GRANTED. For those documents that contain hearsay or otherwise contain disputable facts, even those that are part of the court record or are recorded with the county recorder’s office, the existence of those documents is noticed but the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the contents of the documents are not noticed. For those documents that contain orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments, the court takes judicial notice of the existence of those documents, as well as the truth of facts asserted in those documents. See Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal. App. 3d 904, 914.

The Court’s February 2, 2026 Ex Parte Order required the petitioners to serve the temporary restraining order and all underlying papers to the respondent no later than February 9, 2026. The declaration of Eric Walton filed March 4, 2026 shows service as of February 12, 2026. Service was late, and the respondent requests a continuance to address the merits of the preliminary injunction. Therefore, this matter is CONTINUED to April 30, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12. The respondent shall personally serve and file an opposition addressing the merits of the request for a preliminary injunction no later than April 9, 2026. The petitioner shall personally serve and file any reply no later than April 17, 2026.

Effective immediately, the temporary restraining order signed February 2, 2026 is EXTENDED to April 30, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. in Department 12 and will remain in full force and effect until the continued hearing. The temporary restraining order shall apply to Kendrick Walker as the presently acting trustee of the Tardibuono Family 2015 Trust dated June 11, 2015, or to anyone acting as trustee of said trust or any subtrust created thereunder.

2. Estate of John Bradley Siri
   SPR094432
   Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Tentative Ruling: The motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order lodged January 22, 2026. The Court will include this language in the order: “After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. The effective date of the order relieving counsel is delayed until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.”

3. Estate of Ramonda Louise Crinella
   SPR097852
   Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records

Tentative Ruling: 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.

***End of Tentative Rulings***