DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2016-00836353·orange·Civil·Probate
Hearing 18 days agoCONTINUED

In the Matter of the Assumption of Law Practice of Carlos F. Negrete

Motion to terminate assumption of jurisdiction

Hearing date
Aug 6, 2026
Department
C23
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerState Bar of California
OtherCarlos F. Negrete

Ruling

Ms. Burns provided an express release for the records at issue as reflected in Exhibit B.

Under the stated circumstances, the motion is GRANTED as to the request to require Verizon to comply with the subpoena at issue. Verizon is to be served with notice of this ruling, and it shall have 20 days thereafter to comply.

Counsel for Petitioner is to give notice of this ruling.

16. In the Matter Before the court is the continued hearing on the motion by of the petitioner State Bar of California to terminate its Assumption of assumption of jurisdiction over the law practice of Carlos F. Law Practice of Negrete. Carlos F. Prior to the last hearing, the court posted its tentative Negrete ruling regarding its inclination to grant the motion, but 2016-00836353 continued the hearing to today’s date and ordered a designated decisionmaker to appear to discuss this motion and compliance with the court’s order authorizing the assumption of Mr. Negrete’s law practice.

In addition to the motions identified in the court’s prior order, the court also would like all attorneys appearing at the hearing to review the minute orders of November 7, 2024, December 5, 2024, August 14, 2025, October 16, 2025, and June 4, 2026, in which the court express the concerns it would like to discuss at this hearing.

17.

18.

19.

20.

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