Smith – Trust

TENTATIVE RULINGS

DEPT. CM7

If the tentative rulings below are for a past date, please try the following to force a refresh of this page:

For a Windows-based computer, press “Cntrl” + “Shift” + “R” at the same time. For an Apple computer, press “Cmd” + “Shift” + “R” at the same time.

Date: 07/08/2026

Case # Case Name Tentative

01355718 Smith – Trust TENTATIVE RULING

Case: Smith – Trust 01355718

Calendar No.: 2

Date: 07/08/2026

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA (ROA 407)

Petitioner Brian Alexander Smith (“Petitioner”), in propria persona, moves to compel compliance with a subpoena issued to Cunningham Legal.

No Opposition has been filed. However, of the approximately 100 proofs of service that Petitioner has filed in this case, none of them appear to be for service of the instant motion. This motion can be denied for lack of service.

Petitioner states that the motion was served on Cunningham Legal twice and that the subpoena had a date of production of 2/17/26. Petitioner states that he emailed James Cunningham of Cunningham Legal on 2/26/26 to inquire as to response to the subpoena and Mr. Cunningham responded that he had served a response by mail on 1/26/26 to the address on the subpoena. Petitioner asked Mr. Cunningham to confirm the address and the type of response served. Mr. Cunningham did not respond.

The subpoena is not attached to this motion, and the moving papers say nothing about what documents were requested by

the subpoena. Even if this motion were properly served, the court is not inclined to compel compliance with a subpoena without knowledge of what documents it seeks.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel compliance is denied.

Petitioner is ordered to service notice of ruling.

TENTATIVE RULING

Case:

Calendar No.:

Date: 07/08/2026

01344389 Smith – TENTATIVE RULING Probate Case: Smith – Probate 01344389

Calendar No.: 5

Date: 07/08/2026 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (ROA 110)