Doyle V. Nunes

FL-24-001220 – GUALDERAMA VS GUALDERAMA Respondent’s Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED. The only request besides spousal support is for division of community property, but the Court does not divide assets one at a time, but altogether at the end of the case, at least normally.  For good cause, the Court may “bifurcate” an asset or issue and conduct an early and separate trial, but Respondent’s motion did not follow the procedures that permit the Court to grant such a motion.  That said, since the prior dissolution case already divided most of the community property and decided most of the contested issues before it was dismissed, it would be in the parties’ best interests to resolve this case quickly and the parties are themselves free to divide their remaining community property however they wish.  They simply need to submit a stipulation and order to the Court that reflects their agreement.  The Court’s Self-Help Center offers free assistance with legal forms and procedures.

IN RE: BORGES, JR Case Number: 24CV-0204781 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Brian Keith Borges, Jr. seeks to change his name to Brian Keith Van Meter. No proof of publication has been submitted. The Court requires a Certificate of Publication from the publishing newspaper before the Petition may be granted. If the Certificate of Publication is provided, the Court intends to grant the Petition, vacate all future dates, and close the file.

SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES Case Number: 5235 Tentative Ruling on Case Management Conference: This coordinated proceeding is on calendar for a Case Management Conference. The Court has reviewed the Case Management Conference Statements filed by Plaintiff Smith and Defendant Sierra Pacific Industries. STAY. The McDonald matter remains stayed pending appeal. CLASS NOTICE. The Court appreciates the efforts made by SPI in identifying employees placed at SPI by staffing agencies and is in agreement with SPI’s suggestions regarding the employees at SPI placed by Sonora Employment Agency. The Court invites Plaintiff McDonald to discuss the proposals made by SPI. MOTIONS. There are currently no motions pending in the Smith matter. Pending in McDonald are SPI’s Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Court Order Due to Impossibility that was filed on August 31, 2023 and SPI’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Preservation and Production of Video Camera Footage that was filed on September 1, 2023. Both motions are stayed. TRIAL DATES. McDonald is not presently set for trial. The Court notes that Plaintiffs in Smith filed their Third Amended Complaint on February 28, 2024. SPI filed an Answer on April 2, 2024. As the matter is now at issue, the parties should be ready to discuss a timeline for a Motion for Class Certification. FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE. The Court intends to set a further Case Management Conference and will discuss available dates with counsel.

SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES Case Number: 5235 Tentative Ruling on Case Management Conference: This coordinated proceeding is on calendar for a Case Management Conference. The Court has reviewed the Case Management Conference Statements filed by all parties. STAY. The McDonald matter remains stayed pending appeal. The Court notes that the parties in the Smith case recently submitted a Stipulation and Order seeking a stay of that matter. This was returned by the clerk due the proposed order not being lodged separately. Additionally, the Stipulation was not fax filed and did not contain original signatures. STAFFING AGENCY EMPLOYEES. The Court anticipates receiving a Stipulation and Order in the McDonald case that seeks to change the Court’s previous ruling that employes placed at SPI by staffing agencies fall under the class definitions. The Court has an obligation to all class members and intends to discuss the reasons for this change at today’s hearing. The Court expects that any Stipulation presented will clearly provide valid reasons for this proposed change. DISCOVERY. The Courts notes Plaintiff McDonald’s frustration with not receiving discovery from SPI during the stay. The Court is not able to rule on any discovery issues during the stay and parties are not obligated to provide discovery during the stay. FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE. The Court intends to set a further Case Management Conference and will discuss available dates with counsel.

FL-18-000951 – BRIMHALL VS BRIMHALL Petitioner’s Request for Order re Change Venue—DENIED, without prejudice. There is no proof of service on file as required.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).) This is a dissolution case in which a status-only judgment was filed on July 3, 2021, but no judgment on reserved issues has been entered, and Petitioner’s counsel recently withdrew.  Accordingly, individual party service of Respondent is mandatory and jurisdictional.  (Fam. Code, § 215(a).) That said, the parties’ Stipulation and Order of January 8, 2021, resolved Petitioner’s move-away request and resulted in an agreed move of Petitioner and the minor child to the county of San Diego.  Further, Petitioner alleges that Respondent no longer resides in this forum.  If true, then the Court has authority to transfer the case as requested to San Diego County based on the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 397.5.)  The Court is inclined to grant the request based on this authority, but Respondent must either be properly served or else Respondent must personally appear and waive service.  Petitioner may attempt to demonstrate good cause to continue the hearing to obtain service of Respondent; otherwise, the request will be denied without prejudice and Petitioner will need to file and serve a new order request.

IN RE: TABAG Case Number: 24CV-0204603 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Ramsey Anthony Viloria Tabag also known as Ramsey C. Viloria seeks to change his name to Ramsey Viloria. All procedural requirements of CCP §§ 1275 et. seq. have been satisfied. The Petition is GRANTED. All future dates will be vacated, and the file closed upon the processing of the Decree Changing Name.

IN RE: TABAG Case Number: 24CV-0204603 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Ramsey Anthony Viloria Tabag also known as Ramsey C. Viloria seeks to change his name to Ramsey Viloria. All procedural requirements of CCP §§ 1275 et. seq. have been satisfied. The Petition is GRANTED. All future dates will be vacated, and the file closed upon the processing of the Decree Changing Name.

IN RE J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC Case Number: 24CV-0205373 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights: Petitioner J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC seeks Court approval to transfer a portion of Payee Brenda Hart’s annuity payment to Petitioner. The Petition seeks to transfer Payee’s structured settlement annuity comprising: A) 60 monthly payments of $328 each, beginning September 1, 2024, and ending August 1, 2029, and B) 1 payment of $75,000 on June 1, 2032. In exchange, the Payee will receive $44,000.00. Insurance Code §10134 et seq sets forth the various requirements for the transfer of a structured settlement. Ins. Code §10136 requires specific language in the form of a disclosure and further provides requirements related to the transfer agreement. A disclosure in compliance with Ins. Code §10136 has been provided as Exhibit B to the Petition. The California Purchase Contract (Exhibit A to Petition) contains the contractual provisions required by Ins. Code §10136. Ins. Code §10138 prohibits certain provisions from being included in the transfer agreement. The California Purchase Contract does not contain any of the provisions expressly prohibited by Ins. Code §10138. The Notice of Hearing was timely served on all interested parties. The procedural requirements have been satisfied. The Court must determine whether the transfer is “fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of his or her dependents.” Ins. Code §10137(a). The Petition lacks a supporting Declaration. The Petition states at page 4, ln. 10-15 that Payee would file a Declaration setting forth Payee’s basis for entering into this transaction, including an explanation why Payee feels it is in their best interest. As of the date of the preparation of this tentative ruling, no such declaration has been filed. This matter is continued to Monday, August 12, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64 for further proceedings on the Petition. The Court also notes that Petitioner did not provide a proposed Order as required by Local Rule of Court 5.17(D). No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.