Jose Rodriguez et al vs Nutrien AG Solutions Inc et al

placed the two petitions by Isabel Espinoza at issue, requiring evidentiary hearing to resolve. (In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676; Conservatorship of Farrant (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 370, 377.)

It appears from the Minute Order filed on November 18, 2025, that the Court denied, without prejudice, Isabel Espinoza's request to remove Mr. Vanderkelen as the Personal Representative. Thus, this matter is concluded and should be taken off calendar.

Challenge to Proffered Estate Plan

In addition to the above filings, on August 25, 2025, Tedd Barnett filed a very confusingly titled petition that appears to be challenging the purported estate plan submitted by Ms. Espinoza, pursuant to Probate Code sections Sec.8000, Sec.8004(b), Sec.8250 et seq., Sec.8402, Sec.8502(b) and (d), and Sec.17200(a) and (b).

That petition contained what appears to be the following causes/requests:

A will contest ("PETITION TO CONTEST POUR-OVER WILL AND GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION TO PROBATE OF PURPORTED WILL).

Internal Affairs of a Trust (" PETITION TO CONTEST THE JT LIVING TRUST INSTRUMENT AND GROUNDS THEREOF")

Objection to Petition for Probate filed by Espinoza (OBJECTION TO APPOINT ISABEL ESPINOZA AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOYCE BARNETT GALLAGHER")

Objection to Petition for Removal filed by Espinoza (OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S PETITION TO REMOVE PREVIOUSLY APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR ...")

Objection to Petition for Successor Administrator ("...AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF NOMINATED EXECUTOR")

Continuance ("REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW DISCOVERY")

Request for Trial ("REQUEST FOR TRIAL")

Of all the causes of action listed above, it appears the only matter left to be decided is whether the will proffered by Ms. Espinoza should be admitted to probate. This procedural posture is due to the Court's rulings on November 18, 2025, that denied the removal of Mr. Vanderkellen, and struck the Internal Affairs of a Trust petition from the pleading. However, that matter was re-filed in case no. 26PR00080, and will be dealt with separately in that case.

Mr. Barnett's objections to the will require evidentiary hearing to resolve. It is recommended the Court set an evidentiary hearing date to determine whether the Will should be admitted to Probate.

Tentative Ruling: Jose Rodriguez et al vs Nutrien AG Solutions Inc et al

Tentative Ruling: Jose Rodriguez et al vs Nutrien AG Solutions Inc et al

Case Number

Case Type Unlimited Other Employment (15)

Hearing Date / Time Tue, 08/04/2026 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings Motions for Preliminary and Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Tentative Ruling /media/2173

Tentative Ruling: Nationstar Mortgage LLC vs Tony Larks et al

Tentative Ruling: Nationstar Mortgage LLC vs Tony Larks et al

Case Number