| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Petition to Determine Persons Entitled to Distribution; Motion to Compel; Motion to Compel
Case Number
Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Tue, 04/28/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings 1. Petition to Determine Persons Entitled to Distribution 2. Motion to Compel 3. Motion to Compel Tentative Ruling Probate Notes: Appearances required.
Petition to Determine Persons Entitled to Distribution
The Petition filed by Ronda Stark on February 13, 2025, received written objection by Leigh Anne Carriere Bartz, on May 29, 2025. This places the matter 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.)
Motions to Compel
The motions filed by Ronda Stark on March 13, 2026, were opposed by Leigh Anne Carriere Bartz on April 22, 2026. The following is noted for the Court at the hearing on these motions: It is Hornbook law that unless a statute protects the name, image, and likeness of the individual after death, the right to privacy dies with the person whose privacy is at issue. (James v. Screen Gems, Inc. (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 650, 653; Lugosi v. Universal Pictures (1979) 25 Cal.3d 813, 820, 833 (dissenting Justices agreeing with majority that: "It is not disputed that the right of privacy is a personal one, which is not assignable and ceases with an individual's death."); Flynn v.
Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677 (children of deceased actor Errol Flynn cannot sue author of biography of Flynn for defamation or invasion of privacy because the right of privacy cannot be asserted by anyone other than the person whose privacy has been invaded).
Both the Restatement and Professor Prosser made this rule plain long ago: The right protected by the action for invasion of privacy is a personal right, peculiar to the individual whose privacy is invaded. The cause of action is not assignable, and it cannot be maintained by other persons such as members of the individual's family, unless their own privacy is invaded along with his. The only exception to this rule involves the appropriation to the defendant's own use of another's name or likeness. (Restatement Second, Torts Sec. 652I (1977); Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed.) Sec. 117.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Thus, it appears that most of the assertions by the opposition to the motions are based on a false assertion of privacy rights that no longer exist, neither for Frank nor Kathleen. While our State's law does recognizes the extreme sensitivity of death-scene and autopsy photographs of the deceased, often protecting these images from disclosure (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 129,subd.(a)), that is not at issue here. The requests at issue here are for Electronically Stored Information on the devices of two deceased persons for the stated purpose of proving that they were involved in a relationship that resulted in a legitimate marriage, or not. This is unprotected information, and all communications between these two persons is, therefore, discoverable.
Any purposeful destruction or spoilation of that evidence is sanctionable, up to and including terminating sanctions. (CCP, Sec.2023.030(d).) Parties must come prepared to discuss any meet and confer attempts since the filing of the motion, and be prepared to offer the names of three preferred discovery referees if the Court determines the dispute to be complex, warranting a judicial reference pursuant to CCP section 639.
Appearances: The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference. Meeting ID: 160 543 3416 Passcode: 5053334
Tentative Ruling: Estate of Frank Leigh Stark Tentative Ruling: Estate of Frank Leigh Stark Case Number
Case Type Decedent's Estate Hearing Date / Time Tue, 05/05/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings