What is a LPS mental health conservatorship?

Useful Rulings on LPS Mental Health Conservatorship

Rulings on LPS Mental Health Conservatorship

1-25 of 249 results

TATIANA CARMONA VS PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CA ETAL

Lanterman-Petris Short Act The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (“LPS”) provides that information and records retained by community mental health centers in the provision of mental health services “shall be confidential.” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5328, subd. (a).) However, LPS provides an exception for disclosure “[t]o the courts, as necessary to the administration of justice.” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5328, subd. (a)(6).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2018

CONSERVATORSHIP OF LAWRENCE JEFFREY MOORE

Moore has been held per the LPS act on section 5150 grounds, at least twice without further elevation to holds/evaluations per section 5200 et seq., militates against a probate conservatorship. PLEASE NOTE: The Public Guardian filed a declaration recommending denial of the temporary and that the Court order an LPS investigation to proceed. Objections should be submitted in writing. The proposed temporary conservatee is expected to attend the hearing. (Prob. Code § 2250.4.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2018

CONSERVATORSHIP OF LAWRENCE JEFFREY MOORE

Moore has been held per the LPS act on section 5150 grounds, at least twice without further elevation to holds/evaluations per section 5200 et seq., militates against a probate conservatorship. The proposed temporary conservatee is expected to attend the hearing. (Prob. Code § 2250.4.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2018

CONSERVATORSHIP OF LAWRENCE JEFFREY MOORE

This would likely meet the standard contemplated by the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Ins. Code, §§ 500-5550 [as a result of a mental health disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter]), but it appears the requested powers to place Mr. Moore in a secure facility are outside the jurisdiction of the probate court. (Prob. Code, § 2356(a).). The fact that Mr.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2018

JASON GARDNER VS CERRITOS COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Involuntary treatment of the mentally ill in California is governed by the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (“LPS Act”). Under the LPS Act a designated facility, like HOSPITAL, may detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment if there is “probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled.” (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5150.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JASON GARDNER VS CERRITOS COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Immunity Involuntary treatment of the mentally ill in California is governed by the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (“LPS Act”). Under the LPS Act a designated facility, like HOSPITAL, may detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment if there is “probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled.” (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5150.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

MARIA MEZA VS COUNTY OF ORANGE

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the 1st – 4th causes of action. 5th Cause of Action Violation of the Lanterman-Petris-Short (“LPS”) Act: ¶¶ 88-90 allege that Defendants captured and detained “Eleana Meza” [sic] against her will and without legitimate medical evaluation. As such, Defendants violated the LPS Act, and Plaintiff suffered damages of at least $4 million.

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STAPLETON VS SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ENCINITAS

Scripps also relies on Defendant Kemper's right to privacy under the California Constitution, Evidence Code § 994 physician-patient privilege; Evidence Code § 1014 psychotherapist-patient privilege; the LPS Act/Welfare & Institutions Code § 5328. It is undisputed that Defendant Kemper was in custody at Scripps Health on a Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150 hold.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

IN RE: CONSERVATORSHIP OF FINDLEY

Findley first argues that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (the “LPS” Act) emphasizes the preferences given to family members to act in the best interest of families, and that the appointment of a conservator is subject to a list of priorities set forth in Probate Code section 1812, which favors family members. Findley argues that until family members are found unable, unwilling, or unfit to serve as conservators, the Department does not have standing to petition.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

MCNALLY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The County argues the alleged unlawful statements attributed to the County and its employees arise from protected activity because the statements purportedly made to Plaintiff regarding the potential for an extended involuntary civil commitment were made in the context of evaluating and assessing him as part of Plaintiff's statutorily authorized involuntary civil commitment under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act ("LPS Act") and the County's statutorily mandated evaluation of him pursuant to the same statutory

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MCNALLY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The County argues the alleged unlawful statements attributed to the County and its employees arise from protected activity because the statements purportedly made to Plaintiff regarding the potential for an extended involuntary civil commitment were made in the context of evaluating and assessing him as part of Plaintiff's statutorily authorized involuntary civil commitment under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act ("LPS Act") and the County's statutorily mandated evaluation of him pursuant to the same statutory

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MCNALLY VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The County argues the alleged unlawful statements attributed to the County and its employees arise from protected activity because the statements purportedly made to Plaintiff regarding the potential for an extended involuntary civil commitment were made in the context of evaluating and assessing him as part of Plaintiff's statutorily authorized involuntary civil commitment under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act ("LPS Act") and the County's statutorily mandated evaluation of him pursuant to the same statutory

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DEBRA LYNN HICKS VS GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL

Calica basically reargues her motion for summary judgment, relying on the argument that the LPS Act does not create a private cause of action, and the declaration of Dr. Braff with regard to her conduct not violating the LPS or the standard of care. [Ex. D, Braff Decl.] As discussed above, this showing appears sufficient to give rise to a reasonable possibility of defendant obtaining judgment in this matter.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

IN THE MATTER OF PETER GERARD FAULDERS

An LPS conservatorship, which is superior to the probate conservatorship (W & I § 5350(c)), was opened on 6/9/11. Since the LPS powers encompass and exceed the powers of the probate conservator, there is no need for a probate conservatorship absent termination of the LPS through nonrenewal or otherwise. The concurrent maintenance of both types of conservatorships puts added strain on the resources of this Court's investigative staff, which most recently (4/24/12) reported on the probate conservatorship.

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2012

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

CONSERVATORSHIP OF CATHERINE D. LENTINI

Public defender discharged in this case number, subject to a claim for payment for services rendered, which claim this Court orders may be made in the LPS matter as funds become available. gmr

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2011

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL EMARD

Assuming the remaining attorney fees and conservator fees have been ordered by the judges pro tem in the LPS matter for services unrelated to this estate, what are co-trustees' standards for determining which fees are requested where ? Are co-trustees even noticed on the LPS matter in which payments for professional services are being ordered ? Can counsel please supply the underlying invoices and orders ? Upon satisfactory clarification, approve first account and report.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2017

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    other

IN THE MATTER OF ANDREW MARTIN SHERIDAN

This conservatorship of the person (only) is statutorily subordinate to the existing LPS conservatorship for such time as the LPS conservatorship remains open. Clerk to give notice. gmr

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2015

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

CARLOS MARTIN DOMINGUEZ ET AL VS. PETER D. BRATIS ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Compel Defendant Albera Lps Further Responses To Special Interrogatories Set One, Form Interrogatories Set One, Request For Admissions Set One, Request For Production Set One, And For Monetary Sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2016

  • Judge

    HAROLD E. KAHN

  • County

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

IN THE MATTER OF ALICIA MORALES

The court's investigator believes that the proposed limited conservatee's schizophrenic disorder dictates an LPS locked facility placement, as to which the Public Guardian and Dr. Valencerina apparently concur, but for the recommendation of Dr. Vlaskovits at Hillmont. While it may be that an LPS conservatorship is a more appropriate arrangement for the proposed conservatee, a probate limited conservatorship under the Public Guardian's management is better than no conservatorship at all. Grant petition.

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2014

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL EMARD

Assuming the remaining attorney fees and conservator fees have been ordered by the judges pro tem in the LPS matter for services unrelated to this estate, what are co-trustees' standards for determining which fees are requested where ? Are co-trustees even noticed on the LPS matter in which payments for professional services are being ordered ? Can counsel please supply the underlying invoices and orders ? Upon satisfactory clarification, approve first account and report.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2017

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    other

ANDREW RIBOTTO ET AL VS. GRAYSTONE PARTNERS LP ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Notice Of Motion Of Graystone Partners, Lps Motion For Summary Adjudication, Or In The Alternative Summary Judgment Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Monday November 2, 2015, line 4. DEFENDANT GRAYSTONE PARTNERS LP MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Notice Of Motion Of Graystone Partners, Lps Motion For Summary Adjudication, Or In The Alternative Summary Judgment DENIED. Triable issues exist as to Material Fact Nos. 14, 15, 18, 19 and 25.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2015

  • Judge

    RICHARD B. ULMER

  • County

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

CONSERVATORSHIP OF LAWRENCE JEFFREY MOORE

On July 19, 2018, this matter was heard by Judge Sterne in Department 5, and the minute order reflects that the Public Guardian withdrew its petition for an LPS Conservatorship. This leaves the Petition for Appointment of Probate Conservator, filed February 8, 2018, as the only petition at issue. The Public Guardian found that an LPS Conservatorship was not warranted in this case.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2018

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL CRAIG SOFLEY

The investigator's report indicates co-conservators "inadvertently" sought a probate conservatorship rather than an LPS, but the latter of course requires public agency initiation. No physician's capacity declaration is in the file as yet. The petition itself checks virtually no requested relief. Have there been discussions with the Public Guardian's office relating to an LPS conservatorship ? " Temporary letters were issued on 6/10/14, but nothing further appears in the court file.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2014

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., VS. ALLIANTGROUP, L.P., ET AL

Amended Notice Of Motion And Motion Of Inoapps, Usa To Quash Service Of Summons And Dismiss Alliantgroup, Lps Cross-Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction Set for hearing on Tuesday, September 13, 2016, Line 16, CROSS-DEFENDANT INOAPPS-INNOVATIVE APPLICATIONS, INC.'S Amended Motion To Quash Service Of Summons And Dismiss Alliantgroup, Lps Cross-Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction. Cross-defendant Innovative Applications, Inc.'

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2016

  • Judge

    HAROLD E. KAHN

  • County

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ANDERSON V. SAN ANDREAS REGIONAL CENTER, ET AL.

SARC’s reliance on Julian, however, is misplaced as that case was concerned with whether a private right of action exists under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, Welfare and Institutions Code section 5600 et seq., which is entirely separate from the Lanterman Act that is the subject of the third cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2018

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.