Kimberly Lochridge V Gregory Lochridge

FL-23-003195 – HUGHES VS HUGHES-KNOTT Respondent’s Request for Order re Compel Disclosures, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice, as moot. Petitioner has filed proof of service re service of the subject preliminary declarations of disclosure on July 19, 2024.  The order request is therefore moot.  However, the Court will reserve jurisdiction over the question of conduct-based sanctions and/or fiduciary breach for delay in service of the mandatory disclosures, but Respondent’s request for terminating sanctions against Petitioner is denied.  It would be an abuse of discretion to impose terminating sanctions against a party in the first instance for non-compliance, a penalty that is usually a last resort when all other lesser remedial measures have failed. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUPT025407: IN THE MATTER OF: JASON HOWARD HORTON, JR. 07/24/2024 in Department 21 OSC - Name Change The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Petition for Change of Name pending filing of a Proof of Publication of the Court’s Order to Show Cause in THE ACORN for four consecutive weeks, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1277, subd. (a)1 and the Court’s May 28, 2024, Order to Show Cause. 1 Providing, in pertinent part, that: “…(2)(A) A copy of the order to show cause shall be published pursuant to Section 6064 of the Government Code in a newspaper of general circulation to be designated in the order published in the county. If no newspaper of general circulation is published in the county, a copy of the order to show cause shall be posted by the clerk of the court in three of the most public places in the county in which the court is located, for a like period. Proof shall be made to the satisfaction of the court of this publication or posting, at the time of the hearing of the application. 2024CUPT025407: IN THE MATTER OF: JASON HOWARD HORTON, JR. Analysis Code of Civil Procedure section 1277 provides in pertinent part: “…(2)(A) A copy of the order to show cause shall be published pursuant to Section 6064 of the Government Code in a newspaper of general circulation to be designated in the order published in the county. If no newspaper of general circulation is published in the county, a copy of the order to show cause shall be posted by the clerk of the court in three of the most public places in the county in which the court is located, for a like period. Proof shall be made to the satisfaction of the court of this publication or posting, at the time of the hearing of the application. (3) Four weekly publications shall be sufficient publication of the order to show cause. If the order is published in a daily newspaper, publication once a week for four successive weeks shall be sufficient.” (3) Four weekly publications shall be sufficient publication of the order to show cause. If the order is published in a daily newspaper, publication once a week for four successive weeks shall be sufficient.”

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.

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.

IN RE: RAGULSKY Case Number: 24CV-0204772 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Leslie Lorraine Ragulsky seeks to change her name to Leslie Lorraine Armenta. 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.

FL-23-003195 – HUGHES VS HUGHES-KNOTT Respondent’s Request for Order re Compel Disclosures, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice, as moot. Petitioner has filed proof of service re service of the subject preliminary declarations of disclosure on July 19, 2024.  The order request is therefore moot.  However, the Court will reserve jurisdiction over the question of conduct-based sanctions and/or fiduciary breach for delay in service of the mandatory disclosures, but Respondent’s request for terminating sanctions against Petitioner is denied.  It would be an abuse of discretion to impose terminating sanctions against a party in the first instance for non-compliance, a penalty that is usually a last resort when all other lesser remedial measures have failed. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:

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.

FLORES VS. LANDRAU Case Number: 24CV-0204650 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on June 13, 2024, to Plaintiff Eladio Flores, in pro per, for failure to timely serve pleadings on Defendant Bianca Landrau pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b). “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). The Complaint in this matter was filed on March 29, 2024, and no proof of service has been filed. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the Order to Show Cause. With no sufficient excuse for the delay, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court will issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 68608(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the complaint. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. This matter is also calendared on Monday, September 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of service.