In the matter of Alan K Buchecker

34-2021-00309961-PR-LA-FRC: In the matter of Alan K Buchecker 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Reconsideration in Department 126

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Filed: 5/1/2026

Re: In the Matter of Alan K. Buechecker

Moving Party: Mylien Nguyen Buchecker Self-Represented

Responding Party: Beverly Palmeri Attorney: Alexander Nguyen, (408) 382-1913

NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the court’s website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2526 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 126 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept126 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 5926 9604. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code § 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

34-2021-00309961-PR-LA-FRC: In the matter of Alan K Buchecker 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Reconsideration in Department 126

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING Petitioner Beverly Palmeri’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 4.02.01(D) and 1.06(D). Respondent is directed to contact counsel for opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Respondent is unable to contact counsel for opposing party prior to the hearing, Respondent shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court’s order denying double damages and denying attorney’s fees. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities [“MPA”], 1:21-22.) Petitioner represents that the motion is based upon new law regarding the attorney’s fees, and new evidence regarding the request for double damages. (Id., 5:23.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 requires that a motion for reconsideration be filed “within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order” and be “based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” The statute also requires that “[t]he party making the application shall file by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Id.) Counsel’s “new law” regarding the attorney’s fees is Probate Code 11003, which was operative at and prior to the initial ruling. (MPA, 6:5-6.) Counsel has not provided a sufficient explanation to demonstrate the failure to present this new or different law before the initial ruling. (Baldwin v. Home Sav. of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199. The motion is denied on this basis.

Next, while Petitioner states new evidence warrants reconsideration of the denial of double damages, Petitioner incorrectly states that the Court stated Petitioner’s “petition was not brought under Cal. Prob. Code § 859, et seq.,” stating the petition “did raise Cal. Prob. Code § 859, et seq.” (MPA, 8:6-7.) However, the Court expressly stated the denial of double damages under Probate Code section 859 was because Petitioner’s “surcharge petition is not brought under

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00309961-PR-LA-FRC: In the matter of Alan K Buchecker 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Reconsideration in Department 126

Probate Code section 850 set seq.” Indeed, the petition for removal was brought pursuant to Probate Code section 8500, and the (Petition for Removal and Surcharge, 11/26/25, 2;11-27;

Finally, the affidavit on file merely recites the factual and procedural history of the matter, and does not describe “what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).)

Unsupported by new facts or law warranting reconsideration, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Again, Petitioner is directed to contact counsel for opposing party forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure. If Petitioner is unable to contact opposing party prior to the hearing, Petitioner shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.