Angelica Hernandez v. Estate of Jack Malan et al

PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Conservatorship of Valerie E. Walker 24PR000050

REVIEW HEARING

TENTATIVE RULING: After a review of the matter, the Court finds the Conservator is acting in the best interest of the Conservatee. Thus, the matter is set for a Review – Biennial hearing in two years, on May 12, 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.

Angelica Hernandez v. Estate of Jack Malan et al 25CV002200

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the Proposed Order.

The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 to opposing party/ies forthwith.

The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

Defendant Estate of Jack Malan (“Defendant”) moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10,1 to quash service of summons on the ground that service was not effected on a legally cognizable defendant or on any person authorized by statute to accept service, and the Court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction.

Defendant argues “that an estate is not a legal entity capable of being sued. Claims against a decedent may proceed only against a duly appointed personal representative or other statutorily authorized individual. Here, no probate estate has been opened, no personal representative exists, and no such person is named in the pleading. Plaintiff’s attempt to proceed against a non-entity, coupled with service on an individual lacking legal authority to accept 1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.

service, is jurisdictionally defective.” (Support Memo, p. 1; see also, id., p. 5, citing Lazar v. Estate of Lazar (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 554, 555-56.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s attempted personal service on decedent’s surviving spouse, Chris Malan, is invalid and void.

“Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons to the extent it seeks to quash service on ‘Estate of Jack Malan’ as an improperly named defendant. However, Plaintiff opposes the motion to the extent it: 1. Seeks findings or relief beyond quashing the defective service; 2. Attempts to preclude Plaintiff from substituting the proper defendant via Doe amendment; or 3. Improperly raises statute of limitations arguments that are beyond the scope of a motion to quash.” (Opposition, p. 1.)

Defendant filed nothing by way of a reply to Plaintiff’s (non)opposition.

While Defendant’s motion makes arguments concerning the statute of limitations, Defendant’s motion is not noticed on that ground and does not request relief on that ground. (See Notice of Motion, Support Memo, and Proposed Order.) Nor does Defendant’s motion or proposed order seek findings or relief beyond quashing the defective service or attempt to preclude Plaintiff from substituting the proper defendant via Doe amendment.2

Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED.

25 Executive, LLC v. Julie Nguyen 25CV002614

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT AND DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion and demurrer appear to be MOOT.

The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 to opposing party/ies forthwith.

The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.

2 On April 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment to Complaint on what appears to be a Los Angeles Superior Court local form. This Court generally requires parties to comply with section 472 for amendments to complaints (as opposed to simply filing Doe Amendments). Here, Plaintiff had already amended the complaint once without leave of court, and, therefore, additional amendments require leave of this Court. However, given that Defendant’s instant motion raised the need for a Doe Amendment and that Defendant did not file a Reply in response to Plaintiff’s Opposition setting forth the plan to file a Doe Amendment, the Court will allow the April 30, 2025 Doe Amendment to remain, notwithstanding any right for Defendant to challenge the amendment.

3