| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative Summary Adjudication
Estate of Nancy Jo Solario 25PR000060
STATUS HEARING RE: FINAL DISTRIBUTION
TENTATIVE RULING: In light of the June 02, 2026, hearing on a Petition to approve accounting, set by the Administrator, the present status hearing is MOOT.
Conservatorship of Whitney Malone 26-28912
REVIEW HEARING
TENTATIVE RULING: After a review of the matter, the Court finds the Co- Conservators are acting in the best interest of the Conservatee. Thus, the matter is set for a Review – Biennial hearing in two years, on May 09, 2028, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. The Court Investigator shall prepare a biennial investigator report for the next hearing date. The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Desiree Vasquez v. Your Home Nursing Services, Inc. 22CV000508
CASE REVIEW HEARING RE: FINAL ACCOUNTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUAL FUNDS
APPEARANCE REQUIRED.
**at 9:30 a.m.** American Express National Bank v. William Versaci 25CV000472
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff American Express National Bank moves, pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, for an order entering summary adjudication in favor of plaintiff and against
Defendant William Versaci, or in the alternative for an order entering summary adjudication in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.
“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended . . . that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).) “A plaintiff . . . has met that party’s burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (
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?”
Through the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for breach of contract against Mr. Versaci. The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied its initial burden of producing facts sufficient to make a prima facie showing as to each element of the claim. Mr. Versaci failed to file anything in opposition to the motion, and therefore fails to show a triable question of material fact requiring trial in the matter.
Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of damages in the amount prayed for through the Complaint ($10,372.32). The Court further finds that items listed on Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs, filed January 16, 2026, appear proper on their face. (See (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1267 [held: if the items listed in the memorandum of costs appear proper on their face, then the verified statement is prima facie evidence of their propriety].)
Based on the foregoing, the Court will sign the Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment.
PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Conservatorship of Beverly J. Ribelin 19PR000041
PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROBATE CONSERVATOR OF THE PERSON
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to June 04, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to permit Petitioner to file proof of personal service of the Citation, issued April 7, 2026, on the Conservatee as required pursuant to Probate Code sections 1823, subdivision (a) and 182. Petitioner is to submit Proposed order (GC-340) and letters (GC-350) for the Courts signature.
The Court notes that a Conservatorship of the Estate has been in place since 2019. By the instant Petition, Petitioner appears to seek a Conservatorship of the Person. In this context, the
3