Related Contentin Shasta County
Case
BLAKE VS. BLAKE
Feb 01, 2021 |Stomberg, Nannette J |Dissolution Without Minor Children |Dissolution Without Minor Children |CVFL21-0196620
Case
COUNTY OF SHASTA VS. IRWIN
Aug 15, 2019 |Stomberg, Nannette J |Dept. of Child Support Services (DCSS) |Dept. of Child Support Services (DCSS) |CVFS19-0033978
Case
VASQUEZ VS. SUNSTOR PLATINUM GROUP
Jun 07, 2021 |Berglund, John R |Small Claims $1501 - $5000 |Small Claims $1501 - $5000 |CVCL21-0000108
Case
Browning vs. Pike
Apr 10, 2023 |Stomberg, Nannette J |DCSS - Registration of Out of State Support Order (FC5601) |DCSS - Registration of Out of State Support Order (FC5601) |23FS-0035526
Case
Estate of Peters, III
Jul 12, 2024 |McKee, Monique D |Decedent's Estate |Decedent's Estate |24PB-0032546
Case
Covarrubias vs. Vanderwall
Jun 28, 2024 |Stomberg, Nannette J |DV Prevention Without Minor Children |DV Prevention Without Minor Children |24DV-0205390
Case
Boorman vs. Welch
Jun 26, 2024 |Baker, Stephen |Civil Harrassment |Civil Harrassment |24CH-0205375
Case
Walsh vs. Paduani
Jun 18, 2024 |Baker, Stephen H |Civil Harrassment |Civil Harrassment |24CH-0205294
Case
Welsh vs. Chumney
Jun 20, 2024 |Baker, Stephen H |Civil Harrassment |Civil Harrassment |24CH-0205314
Case
PAREDES VS. TELLES
Mar 03, 2021 |Stomberg, Nannette J |Other Family Law |Other Family Law |CVFL21-0196827
Case
Monroe vs. Hockenberry
Jul 16, 2024 |Petition for Custody and Support of Minor Child |Petition for Custody and Support of Minor Child |24FL-0205513
Case
24FL-0205547
Jul 19, 2024 |Summary Dissolution |Summary Dissolution |24FL-0205547
Case
Synchrony Bank vs. Meeink
May 15, 2023 |Baker, Stephen H |09: Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - up to $10,000 |09: Limited Rule 3.740 Collections - up to $10,000 |23CVG-00474
Ruling
Black Knight Fire Support, Inc. vs. Peterson Holding Company, et al.
Jul 18, 2024 |22CV-0201274
HOLDING COMPANY, ET AL.Case Number: 22CV-0201274Tentative Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. This is a breach of contract casearising out of maintenance and repair work that Plaintiff alleges it hired Defendants to perform ona bulldozer in 2020. Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings, on the grounds that the FirstAmended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against DefendantsPeterson Holding Company and Peterson Tractor Company. Plaintiff opposes the motion.Meet and Confer: Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, moving party's counselmust meet and confer, in person or by telephone, with counsel for the party who filed the pleadingsubject to the judgment on the pleadings motion “for the purpose of determining if an agreementcan be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.”CCP § 439(a). Here, the Declaration of Paul Meidus attaches as Exhibit A a “Meet and Confer”email he sent to Plaintiff’s counsel midday on May 21, 2024. Mr. Meidus’s Declaration states thatas of the date of the filing, he had not received a response from counsel. The instant Motion wasfiled May 22, 2024. The Court’s Order dated June 17, 2024, noted that this was not a good faitheffort to meet and confer, and ordered Defendant to file a supplemental declaration regardingadditional efforts to determine if an agreement could be reached, no later than July 9, 2024. Nosuch declaration has been filed. Defendant has not adequately met and conferred as required byCCP § 439(a). Defendant was also ordered to file proper proof of service of the motion, as nonehad been previously filed. Defendant did not do so.Timeliness of Motion: CCP 438(e): No motion may be made pursuant to this section if a pretrialconference order has been entered pursuant to Section 575, or within 30 days of the date the actionis initially set for trial, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise permits. Here, it appears nopretrial conference order has been entered. However, the date the action was initially set for trialwas November 28, 2023. That date has long passed, and the parties have sought and received twocontinuances of the trial date since then. The parties have participated in a mandatory settlementconference, and have engaged in motion practice including on discovery issues. As Defendantsargue, the motion is untimely under CCP 438(e). Despite the time limitation imposed by CCP438(e), which was codified in 1994, Courts have since held that a nonstatutory motion forjudgment on the pleadings survives without the time limitation. “A motion for judgment on thepleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself.” Stoops v. Abbassi(2002) 100 CA4th 644, 650.Request for Judicial Notice: Pursuant to Evid. Code §§ 452 and 453, the Court GRANTSDefendants’ request for judicial notice of the Complaint and First Amended Complaint.Merits: A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer butis made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by CCP § 438, the rulesgoverning demurrers apply. Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 CA4th 995, 999;Templo v. State of Calif. (2018) 24 CA5th 730, 735 (motion for judgment on the pleadings isequivalent to a demurrer). The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appearon the face of the challenged pleading or be based on facts the court may judicially notice. CCP§ 438(d); Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 CA5th 734, 758-759.The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed October 26, 2023, is the operative pleading.Defendants named in the caption include Peterson Holding Company, Brian Adams, and PetersonTractor Co. The parties stipulated to the amendment of the FAC, which changed Plaintiff’s nameto Black Knight Enterprises (it was formerly Black Knight Fire Support, Inc.). The order on thatstipulation was entered on October 23, 2023. The FAC alleges: Peterson Holding Company andPeterson Tractor Company (“Peterson”) operate several lines of business, including Peterson-CAT. (FAC ¶4.) Peterson, as Peterson-CAT, sells Caterpillar brand earthmoving and constructionequipment, and provides maintenance and repair services for such equipment. (FAC ¶4.) Petersonoperates at several locations, including a facility in Redding, County of Shasta, California, whichwas where Peterson’s obligations which are the subject of this complaint were to be performed.(FAC ¶4.) Peterson’s service manager Brian Adams provided a quote for maintenance work whichPlaintiff accepted on December 2, 2020. (FAC ¶ 10.)The FAC contains numerous further allegations against Peterson. The Court only looks to the faceof the pleadings and matters subject to judicial notice on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.This is a well-pleaded complaint making allegations that Peterson Holding Company and PetersonTractor Company entered into a contract with Plaintiff in 2020 for maintenance work that wasperformed. The identity of the correct business entity which is directly liable to Plaintiff may bePeterson Holding, Peterson Tractor, or Peterson-CAT – but that information is in the control ofthe Defendants. The Court notes that on June 24, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motions toCompel Discovery Responses, which had not been provided as required by the CCP, despiteseveral reasonable extensions granted by Plaintiff. The responses presumably will permit Plaintiffto amend to add Peterson-CAT as a named defendant if necessary.On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as on a demurrer, the court “treat[s] the demurrer asadmitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions offact or law.” Hood v. Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 435,438. No matter how unlikely, a plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose ofruling on a demurrer. Del. E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d593, 604. A plaintiff must plead ultimate facts that acquaint the defendant with the nature, sourceand extent of plaintiff’s causes of action. Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 542, 550.Here, Defendants are clearly aware of the allegations in this matter and the events which gave riseto them. Defendants are arguing corporate form shields two of the defendants from liability.Notably, Defendants’ pleading is conspicuously silent as to what the actual corporate relationshipis here, even though that information is within its custody and control. The Motion for Judgmenton the Pleadings is DENIED. No proposed order has been lodged as required by Local Rule5.17(D). Defendant shall prepare the order.
Ruling
IN RE MECCHI REVOCABLE TRUST
Jul 16, 2024 |CVPB19-0029935
IN RE MECCHI TRUSTCase Number: CVPB19-0029935Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Production: Jeffrey Mecchi1 filed a Motion to CompelTrustee to Provide a Fifth Accounting on April 14, 2023. On July 4, 2023, the Court granted theMotion in part – ordering Trustee Janet Mecchi to file and serve the Fifth Accounting for the periodof December 2, 2020 – July 31, 2022. On November 28, 2023, the Court issued an OSC reContempt for Janet’s failure to timely file and serve the Fifth Accounting. On December 5, 2023,Janet Mecchi filed a Petition for Approval of Fifth Accounting. Jeffrey filed an Objection to theFifth Accounting on January 17, 2024. Jeffrey served Requests for Production on Janet on January25, 2024. He sought documents in support of disbursem*nts itemized in Schedule C to the FifthAccounting. Janet served responses and objections on February 23, 2024. Jeffrey filed the instantMotion to Compel Production of Documents on April 12, 2024. Hearing on the Motion haspreviously been continued by stipulation of the parties.Requests for Production 1-44 request all documents which support reimbursem*nt for certain itemspaid for by check and itemized in Schedule C to the Fifth Accounting. Requests for Production45-47 request any and all documents, including but not limited to purchase agreements, appraisalsand checks which refer to the transfer of: 974 Paramount Way in Redding, California; 274 OakStreet in Tahoma, California; and Lot 8, Block 26 of Tahoe Cedar Tract.Petitioner concedes that Janet has produced a series of redacted checks, which hide Janet’s trustaccount information and account information of a third party, Andrew Roche. (Mtn. 4:15-17.)Janet also produced redacted escrow documents and appraisals relating to the real property at issue.(Mtn. 4:19-23.) Jeffery now seeks unredacted checks and other documentation to further supportthe accounting.Merits of Motion: Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(a)(3) provides a party may move foran order compelling further responses to requests for production if an objection to the response is1 The parties share a last name. The Court will use their first names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.without merit or too general. The motion must set forth specific facts showing good causejustifying the discovery sought by the demand. CCP § 2031.310(b)(1). The court must imposemonetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes such a motion absentsubstantial justification or other circ*mstances that would make the imposition of the sanctionunjust. CCP § 2031.310(h).Jeffrey argues there is good cause to justify the discovery sought. He concedes that all of thechecks he seeks have already been identified by Janet. (Mtn. 6:12-13.) He now seeks accountinformation, which he can use to “identify the bank from which the checks were drawn, and thusverify from the bank itself what checks have come into and out of the trust account.” (Mtn. 6:16-19.) Janet objects to further discovery, including of bank account numbers, on the grounds of herright of privacy.“Whether a legally recognized privacy interest is present in a given case is a question of law to bedecided by the court. Whether plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy in thecirc*mstances and whether defendant's conduct constitutes a serious invasion of privacy are mixedquestions of law and fact. If the undisputed material facts show no reasonable expectation ofprivacy or an insubstantial impact on privacy interests, the question of invasion may be adjudicatedas a matter of law.” Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 40 (internal citationsomitted.) The Court must determine: 1) whether there is a legally protected privacy interest, 2)whether respondent has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and 3) whether the alleged invasionis serious. Hill, supra 7 Cal. 4th at 35-37. Courts must place the burden on the party asserting aprivacy interest to establish its extent and the seriousness of the prospective invasion, and againstthat showing must weigh the countervailing interests the opposing party identifies, as Hill requires.What suffices to justify an invasion will vary according to the context. Only obvious invasions ofinterests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest. Williamsv. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 557.Here, Jeffrey concedes Janet has provided documents in support of the itemized accounting. Thisis already more information than Jeffrey is entitled to as a remainder beneficiary of the Trust. Asseveral decisions in this matter have previously opined, Jeffrey has no present interest in the Trust.(Findings and Orders November 2020, Ex. L to Decl. Pressman.) Under Probate Code § 16062,there is only a duty to account to a beneficiary who is currently entitled to distribution. As aremainder beneficiary, Jeffrey is not entitled to an accounting under this provision. However, aspart of a stipulation entered as an order of the Contra Costa County Superior Court on August 19,2025, Janet agreed to provide accountings on a biennial basis. This Court has previously orderedthat these accountings will continue on a biennial basis, and has held that the sole purpose of theaccountings is to demonstrate that the trust assets are being used for the care and support of Janet.(Findings and Orders November 2020, Ex. L to Decl. Pressman.) The Court finds that thedistributions itemized in Janet’s Fifth Accounting are sufficient to meet this standard. Further asTrustor, Trustee, and sole present Beneficiary, Janet has a reasonable expectation of privacy in theTrust’s bank account numbers. Prior Court orders have made it abundantly clear that the Trustee(Janet) in her sole discretion may pay to or apply for the benefit of the surviving Trustor (Janet),such amounts from the principal of the Trust, up to the whole thereof, as the Trustee may fromtime to dime deem necessary or advisable for the Trustor’s use and benefit. (Findings and OrdersNovember 2020, Ex. L to Decl. Pressman.) There is no provision of the trust that would precludeJanet from liquidating trust assets in order to pay for ongoing trust expenses and to provide liquidassets for Janet’s care and future needs. Id. The Fifth Accounting evidences that she has done so,as she is permitted to do. Jeffrey argues Janet “should be required to prove that her claims ofincome and expense stated in her Fifth Accounting are accurate.” The Court declines to imposesuch a requirement. The Petition to Approve Fifth Accounting is properly verified. Further, theCourt reiterates its previous admonition that remainder beneficiaries should be mindful thatasserting unmeritorious objections for the purpose of continuing litigation at Janet’s expense mayresult in the imposition of an award of attorney’s fees against an objecting party.Sanctions: The court must impose monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfullymakes or opposes such a motion absent substantial justification or other circ*mstances that wouldmake the imposition of the sanction unjust. CCP § 2031.310(h). However, Respondent did notseek monetary sanctions and provided no evidence regarding attorney’s fees or other costsassociated with opposing the motion. Sanctions should only be imposed for “reasonable”expenses. CCP § 2023.030. The Court does not have information upon which to make a findingthat any amount of sanctions were for reasonable expenses and will not impose sanctions.The Motion to compel Production is DENIED. A proposed order has been lodged. It will bemodified to conform to the Court’s ruling.Fifth Accounting: The Accounting filed December 5, 2023 is deficient in that it does not includea Schedule B. Janet Mecchi is ORDERED to file and serve Schedule B to the Fifth Accountingwithin 15 days of Notice of Entry of Order on this Motion. Failure to timely file Schedule B willresult in an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions to Respondent and Counsel for failure to complywith this Court’s July 4, 2023 Order to provide a Fifth Accounting.Pending 850 Petition: Finally, the Court notes that a Petition to Restore Real Property to Trustwas filed July 3, 2023. Respondent filed an Objection to the Petition on December 1, 2023.Hearing on the Petition was continued several times due to notice defects. The Petition has neverbeen properly noticed for hearing, as the person in possession of the property, Andrew Roche, hasnever been properly served as required by Probate Code section 851. Petitioner has not withdrawnthe Petition, however it appears to have been abandoned. The parties should be prepared toaddress the status of the Petition at today’s hearing.
Ruling
GDN OF WALCZAK, ETAL
Jul 19, 2024 |CVPG18-0029822
GUARDIANSHIP OF KAYLEE WALCZAKCase Number: CVPG18-0029822This matter is on calendar for an Order to Show Cause issued to the Guardian for her failure toappear at the previous hearing on May 6, 2024 and for her failure to file the required ConfidentialGuardianship Status Report. The matter is also on calendar for further proceedings on the AnnualReview. No response to the Order to Show Cause has been submitted. The Status Report has notbeen submitted. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to discuss theGuardianship’s status. The Guardian may appear by telephone. Warning: Failure toappear on today’s calendar will result in the issuance of both monetary sanctions in the sumof $250.00, and an Order to Show Cause re: Termination of Guardianship and referral tothe Court Investigator.
Ruling
Estate of Davee
Jul 18, 2024 |24PB-0032532
ESTATE OF JAMES DAVEECase Number: 24PB-0032532This matter is on calendar for hearing on a Petition to Determine Succession to Real Property. Thematter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. No objections have been raised. Theoriginal will has not been lodged. The Court notes that the appraisal was performed by someone named“Bud Garvin”, who is not the designated probate referee for Shasta County. Petitioner has failed tofollow the procedure required by probate code Section 8921. No proposed order was lodged with theCourt as required by Local Rule 15.05. This matter is continued to Monday, August 26, 2024, at 2:30p.m. in Department 44 for further proceedings to allow the Petitioner to address the above defects. Noappearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
Dempewolf vs. Correa
Jul 19, 2024 |22CV-0199626
DEMPEWOLF VS. CORREACase Number: 22CV-0199626This matter is on calendar for review regarding trial setting. The previous trial date was vacatedby the Court’s order dated May 31, 2024 Order. The Court designates this matter as exempt fromcase disposition time standards. Both Plaintiff and Defendant have posted jury fees. The partiesare ordered to appear to provide the Court with available trial dates.
Ruling
Guardianship of Lavelle
Jul 19, 2024 |24PG-0032502
4Case Number: 24PG-0032502This matter is on calendar for hearing on a Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person ofminor, Cherish Lavelle. The Petition was filed by the minor’s biological father Andrew Willis.Temporary orders have not been requested.The Petition appears to provide incorrect information about the familial relationships of the minor.Item 2 on the Child Information Attachment identifies the adopted mother but the biological father.It should identify the adoptive parents and grandparents. Item 2 is also incomplete and fails toidentify the adoptive paternal grandparents and siblings. A Notice of Hearing was filed and servedon Daniel Lavelle (possibly the adoptive father), Velma Willis and Cliff Willis; however, none ofthese individuals are identified in the Petition and therefore the Court is unaware of theirrelationship with the minor. The Petition also fails to provide the Indian Child Inquiry Attachment(Judicial Council Form ICWA-010(A)). The Court will require an Amended Petiiton whichprovides the correct family information and attaches the omitted Indian Child Inquiry Attachment.The matter must then be served on the parents, grandparents, minor and any siblings. The parentsmust be personally served in order to move forward on the Petition. Prob. Code § 1511(b). Thegrandparents may be served by mail. Prob. Code § 1511(c). Siblings can be served by mail. Prob.Code § 1511(c). For siblings under 12 years of age, service can be on the parent or guardian withwhom the sibling resides. Prob. Code § 1460.1.This matter is also on calendar for hearing on an Order to Show Cause to Petitioner as to why thePetition should not be dismissed. No response has been filed to the Order to Show Cause. Anappearance is necessary on today’s calendar to address the Order to Show Cause.
Ruling
In Re: Bassett
Jul 19, 2024 |24CV-0204432
IN RE: BASSETTCase Number: 24CV-0204432Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Brittany R. Basset seeks to change the name ofher minor son. No proof of publication has been submitted. The Court requires a Certificate of Publication fromthe publishing newspaper before the Petition may be granted. Additionally, the father of the minor has objectedto the proposed name change. An appearance by Petitioner and the father are necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
Verdin vs. Nissan North America, Inc.
Jul 16, 2024 |23CV-0202892
VERDIN VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.Case Number: 23CV-0202892This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of mediation. No status report has been filed.An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
Estate of Rinard
Jul 18, 2024 |22PB-0031847
ESTATE OF WAYNE RINARDCase Number: 22PB-0031847This matter is on calendar for hearing on the First and Final Account and Report and Petition for FinalDistribution. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. No objections havebeen raised. The paperwork appears to be in order. The Petition for Final Distribution is GRANTED.A proposed order has been submitted and will be executed by the Court. This matter is set for Monday,September 23, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. in Department 44 for confirmation of filing of Receipts and aPetition for Final Discharge. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
In Re Riggins
Jul 19, 2024 |24PB-0032375
IN RE RIGGINSCase Number: 24PB-0032375This matter is on calendar for confirmation of deposit of settlement funds into a blocked account. AnAcknowledgement of Receipt of Order and Funds for Deposit in Blocked Account was filed on June 24, 2024.The Court orders that any future dates be vacated and the clerk is directed to close the file. No appearance isnecessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
Verdin vs. Nissan North America, Inc.
Jul 19, 2024 |23CV-0202892
VERDIN VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.Case Number: 23CV-0202892This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of mediation. No status report has been filed.An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
Guardianship of Roberts
Jul 18, 2024 |23PG-0032043
GUARDIANSHIP OF IVAN ROBERTSCase Number: 23PG-0032043This matter is on calendar for status of visitation. The Guardian and mother were previously ableto reach a visitation arrangement. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to discussvisitation and, if appropriate, to make any modifications to the visitation arrangement.
