Motion for Fees
8 Rayhan - Other Probate 30-2024-01401950
9 Ortiz – Elder Abuse; Motion for Fees
Respondents Beatrice Castaneda and Rose Lee’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (ROA 43) is DENIED.
Pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.03(t) and Code of Civil Procedures sections 1032 and 1033.5, Respondents seek an award of $13,732.30 fees and costs in connection with cases 2025-01514616, 2025-01514620, 2025- 01514623, 2025-01514626, and 2025-01514818. Respondents argue they were the prevailing parties in those actions because the petitioners dismissed their requests for restraining order without prejudice.
The requests for restraining orders were filed by the following relatives of Camerina Ortiz, who was suffering from dementia: Vera Ramirez (sister), Adam Ortiz (son), Joshua Ortiz (son), and Claudette Ortiz (daughter). Vera, Adam, Joshua and Claudette generally asserted Respondent Beatrice Castaneda, Camerina’s oldest daughter, removed Camerina from her home and isolated her from petitioners. Adam also filed a separate petition alleging Rose Lee (another of Camerina’s daughters) was seeking to interfere with his visits to his mother.
In connection with the requests, the court appointed a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) to represent Camerina’s interests. The report filed with the court by the GAL recommended the petitioners, with the sole exception of Josh, be allowed access to and visitation with Camerina. The GAL’s report included the following statements regarding the allegations in the petitions:
“What I am most concerned about is [Beatrice’s] insistence that her husband be present as a third-party neutral and that Ms. Ortiz does not leave [Beatrice’s] property. I can see that however well-meaning she intends to be, [Beatrice] is overbearing and would answer for her mother and intimidate any visitors.” (ROA 27 at 6:6-7.)
Also,
“[Beatrice] informed me when I went to visit, that Ms. Ortiz would not feel comfortable with me unless she told Ms. Ortiz it was okay to speak with me. It is my hope that [Beatrice] will provide her mother with the assurance that it is okay to visit with her children and sister. Except for Josh, Ms. Ortiz desires to see the Petitioners and their families. Seeing them is in her best interest. I recommend that they be allowed to take the opportunity to take her for short visits to local restaurants and she tolerates that well, to visit with their families.” (ROA 27 at 6:10-15.)
Following receipt of the GAL’s report, the court ordered petitioners be allowed to visit Camerina. (ROA 33.) Several visits took place. At a follow-up hearing on January 12, 2026, however, the GAL informed the court Camerina had indicated she did not want to have any more visits. The GAL stated, however, she believed Camerina “c[ould] be influenced.” The court directed the GAL to meet, in person, with Camerina to confirm her wish was for no more visits. At a hearing on February 20, 2026, the GAL stated Camerina did not want any more visits with petitioners. Petitioners then dismissed their petitions without prejudice.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Respondents now seek an award of attorneys’ fees on the ground they were the prevailing party in these proceedings.
Fees and costs on Requests for Elder of Dependent Adult Restraining Order Allowing Contact (EA-300) are governed by Welfare & Institutions Code section 15657.03(t), which reads in full: “The prevailing party in an action brought under this section may be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees, if any.” (Emphasis added.) A “prevailing party” includes “the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1032.)
As set forth in section 15657.03(t), costs and fees “may” be awarded to a prevailing party. “The use of the word ‘may’ denotes a discretionary choice.” (Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1561.) Given the facts of this case, the court exercises its discretion to deny an award of costs or fees.
The court will give notice.
10 Nguyen – Motion to Strike Conservatorship 30-2023-01345985 Proposed conservator and objector Ngoc Hong Nguyen’s Motion to Strike or Disregard Respondent’s Unauthorized Post-Reply Filings (ROA 483) is DENIED as moot.
By her motion, Ngoc Hong Nguyen seeks to strike Danh Hong’s Opposition to Ngoc Hong Nguyen’s Reply to Opposition (ROA 479) and Declaration of Danh Hong in Support of Opposition to Ngoc Hon Nguyen’s Reply (ROA 478). The documents were filed in connection with Ngoc Hong Nguyen’s Motion for Independent Geriatric Evaluation (ROA 419). The motion was heard and decided on April 29,