DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
202300575903PRLP·ventura·Probate·Probate
Hearing 2 months agoCONTINUED

In the Matter of Nathan Edward Kaplan

Annual/Biennial Status Report Conservatorship Review

Hearing date
Jun 23, 2026
Department
J6
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 28, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

OtherNathan Edward Kaplan

Ruling

202300575903PRLP: In the Matter of Nathan Edward Kaplan 06/23/2026 in Department J6 Hearing re: Annual/Biennial Status Report Conservatorship Review

Local Rule 10.02(J)(2) now requires that a copy of the status report be served on the individuals identified in Probate Code section 2351.2, subdivision (a)(2)(A), and that the proof of service be filed with the court. As of 6/16/26, no proof of service has been filed. If the proof of service is not filed before the hearing, the Court will continue this hearing to 7/28/26 at 10:30 a.m. in J6 in order for the proof to be filed.

If the proof of service is filed before this hearing, the biennial status report was due by 5/20/26 and was filed on 4/28/26. It is complete. No appearance is required.

The next biennial status report shall be served and filed by 5/19/28 and set for a sufficiency hearing on 6/20/28 at 10:30 a.m., in Dept. J6.

As of 6/19/26, the Court Investigator’s Report has not been filed. If the report is not filed before the hearing, the Court will continue the hearing to 7/28/26, at 10:30 a.m., in J6 for the report to be filed.

If the Court Investigator’s Report is filed before the hearing, the next Court Investigator’s Report shall be filed by 5/19/28.

The clerk shall give notice.

1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share