arrow left
arrow right
  • IN RE: MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF REVOCABLE TRUST SUBSTITUTED JUDGMENT/ SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST PETITION document preview
  • IN RE: MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF REVOCABLE TRUST SUBSTITUTED JUDGMENT/ SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST PETITION document preview
  • IN RE: MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF REVOCABLE TRUST SUBSTITUTED JUDGMENT/ SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST PETITION document preview
  • IN RE: MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF REVOCABLE TRUST SUBSTITUTED JUDGMENT/ SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST PETITION document preview
  • IN RE: MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF REVOCABLE TRUST SUBSTITUTED JUDGMENT/ SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST PETITION document preview
  • IN RE: MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF REVOCABLE TRUST SUBSTITUTED JUDGMENT/ SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST PETITION document preview
						
                                

Preview

NOV 18 2020 2 3 CLERK-OF AH COURT BY: ‘Deputy Clerk 4 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 6 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 1 In re 8 Case No. PTR 17-301171 AND PCN 12- MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF | 295409 9 || REVOCABLE TRUST ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR 10 |} And related: CONTINUANCE OF DEADLINES FOR -NEW-TRIAL- MOTION- ‘CONSERVATORSHIP OF MARILYN SILVERMAN-BALLONOFF [PCN-12- 295409] 13 Ms. S. Ballonoff has filed another request for accommodation, apparently dated November 11, delivered to me November 16, in connection with a requested extension of time to file a motion for a new trial. In response to my ex parte directive to her (ex parte because it concerned only issues covered by CRC 1.100") for further information, Ms. Ballonoff informs 1 || me she cannot obtain that information in the near future. I still require the information. 19 But at the same time I do not wish to make it difficult for Ms. Ballonoff to file her motion 20 || for a new trial, which might happen if she were unable timely to secure the information I require. For that reason I am inclined to grant the requested continuance but remain concerned that it will not permit an adequate briefing schedule within the jurisdiction time limits set forth in CCP §§ 657 ff ' This order addresses a continuance request as such, and so is served on all parties.wo eo YN DW BF WN _|| setting ont their views. of the Jast.dates for. the filing of: papers in -connection.with a motion for.a Ms. Ballonoff requests a continuance of 20 days past what she considers to be her filing deadline of November 26. The request is granted (the new date being therefore December 16). I express no opinion on whether the November 26 date (now December 16) is correct. Ms. Ballonoff also requests to be allowed to file one memorandum equal to the page limits of 3 memoranda to address all three matters I have determined. That is granted, and the equivalent is granted to the opposing side (the conservator /trustee). I value concise memoranda, and encourage the parties to use only the number of pages they need. Both side are now also directed to file and serve a short (e.g. about 1 page) submission new trial, and the last date for a court determination (CCP § 660(c)). This should be done as soon as practicable, and not later than 23 November. I may thereafter issue a new order setting/modifying dates for the filing of papers to ensure we comply with the statutory deadlines for motions for a new trial. —_~_ > Curtis E.A. Karnow Judge Of The Superior Court Dated: November 18, 2020CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE (CCP 1010.6(6) & CRC 2.260(g)) I, DANIAL LEMIRE, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, certify that I am not a party to the within action. On November 18, 2020, I electronically served THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT by email on the recipients designated below. Sheila Robello, Esq. Selene Ballonoff Vincent K. Yu, Esq. selenebni@gmail.com SOLAN PARK & ROBELLO, LLP Petitioner/Objector, Pro Se law@solanpark.com for Petitioner Thomas A. Lucas Dated: November 18, 2020 el Yuen, Clerk DANIAL LEMIRE, Deputy Clerk