DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV-0207239·shasta·Civil·Quiet Title
Hearing about 2 months agoVACATED

MCCAIN VS. EST OF RICHARD CARL RIPLEY, ET AL.

Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

Hearing date
Jul 6, 2026
Department
64
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffAngela McCain
DefendantEst of Richard Carl Ripley

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0207239 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal issued to Plaintiff Angela McCain, in pro per, on February 9, 2026, for failure to timely serve pleadings on defendants pursuant to CRC 3.110(b) and failure to timely prosecute. Plaintiff has filed proofs of service on May 5, 2026 and has filed proof of payment of sanctions imposed previously. Based on these efforts, the OSC is VACATED, and the matter will not be dismissed at this stage.

However, upon review of the file, the Court notes numerous deficiencies. The proofs of service on file indicate that Plaintiff in her individual capacity, is suing herself, as administrator of her parents estate. It appears to the Court that Plaintiff has named improper parties as defendants in this action, as she is seeking to quiet title as to a John Parker and Mary Parker, not as to the estates of Richard and Dolores Ripley. Additionally, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to record a Notice of Pendency of Action (lis pendens) for the subject property as required by CCP § 761.010(b). Plaintiff is ordered to appear today to discuss: the status of her case, the proper defendants to this action, and providing notice to those defendants. 3

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