Colunga – Trust

3 Westerhyde – Guardanship (2024- Brian W. Baron’s unopposed motion to be relieved as 01419769) guardian ad litem of the minor child is GRANTED. The Motion to Be appointment of a guardian ad litem lasts only so long as the Relieved as GAL grounds for appointment continue to exist. (Chui v. Chui (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 929, 936.) Here, a permanent guardian has been appointed for the minor child and there are no grounds supporting the continuing appointment of Mr. Baron as guardian ad litem.

Mr. Baron is to serve notice of this order on all persons entitled to notice.

4 Colunga – Trust Fletcher A. Robbe’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for (2022-01293598) Anna-Marie Colunga-Arreola (ROA 389) is GRANTED. Motion to Be Relieved The court will sign the Proposed Order. Moving counsel is ORDERED to give notice to all parties to this action and file proof of service of the court’s order as entered. Withdrawal will be effective upon filing of proof of service of the order.

5 Aguirre – Trust (2025-01486818) Motions to Compel (3)

6 Hargrove – Trust Michael Hargrove’s Motion to Consolidate (ROA 76) is (2024-01424741) GRANTED. Motion to Consolidate The motion asks the court to consolidate the following three petitions for purposes of trial: (1) Petition to Suspend the Power of the Trustee for Breach of Fiduciary Duty etc., filed by Stephen Hargrove on August 23, 2024 (ROA 2); (2) First Account and Report of Trustee, filed by Michael Hargrove on February 21, 2025 (ROA 19); and (3) Petition for Instructions under Probate Code § 17200, filed by Michael Hargrove on October 1, 2025 (ROA 53).

Michael argues the three petitions “arise from the same underlying dispute concerning the administration and distribution of assets” of the Ralph D Hargrove Family Trust (Trust) (Motion at 5:24-27), so that consolidation would promote judicial economy. Stephen Hargrove “acknowledges that some factual overlap exists among the three pending petitions” but claims consolidation “without vacating and resetting the trial dates would result in substantial prejudice.” (Opposition at 2:3-9.)

Pursuant to CCP § 1048