Machorro – Trust

01317719 Hinnenkamp – TENTATIVE RULING Probate Case: Hinnenkamp – Probate 01317719

Calendar No.: 6

Date: 05/27/2026

MOTION TO REQUEST HEARING ON CREDITOR’S CLAIM (ROA 186)

June Estrada, in propria persona, filed a motion captioned as, “PLEADING TITLE: MOTION TO REQUEST A HEARING FOR CREDITOR’S CLAIM FOR JUNE ESTRADA EXPEDITE TO DEBORAH SUDERNO.” (ROA 186.) The motion is DENIED as procedurally defective.

Ms. Estrada submitted a creditor’s claim on 4/18/23. (ROA 5.) Deborah Suderno was appointed Administrator on 6/20/24, and Letters issued on 7/24/24. (ROAs 108 and 120.) Ms. Estrada’s claim was rejected by the Administrator on 6/3/25. (ROA 182.)

In her moving papers, Ms. Estrada acknowledges that she received the Notice of Rejection of her claim. (ROA 186, Mot., 4:12-13.)

Ms. Estrada’s remedy was to commence an action (i.e., a civil lawsuit) on the claim within 90 days of rejection. (Prob. Code § 9353) Filing a motion in the probate action to contest a rejection is not an available procedural remedy.

Ms. Suderno is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

01389717 Machorro – TENTATIVE RULING Trust Case: Machorro – Trust 01389717

Calendar No.: 9

Date: 05/27/2026 MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (ROA 231)

Petitioner Vanessa Stone (“Petitioner”) moves to compel initial responses to requests for production of documents

from Respondent Lorelei Ann Griggs (“Respondent”). Petitioner further moves for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,060.00.

In opposition (ROAs 476, 484, and 497), Respondent states that she has since complied with discovery and produced documents. However, she does not state a satisfactory reason for failing to timely respond to discovery or request an extension. Respondent also argues that the discovery sought by the subject document demand is duplicative. There is no evidence of duplication presented. Moreover, “[a] party is permitted to use multiple methods of obtaining discovery and the fact that information was disclosed under one method is not, standing alone, a proper basis for refusing to provide discovery under another method.” (Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 738-739 (emphasis added).) Further, no motion for protective order was filed.

Petitioner maintains that discovery sanctions should be imposed for necessitating the motion. (ROA 487.)

The court is not persuaded that Respondent has opposed this motion with substantial justification. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(c), the court awards Petitioner attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,060.00 payable by Respondent Lorelei Ann Griggs.

Counsel for moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling and may elect to prepare, file and serve a proposed Order After Hearing.

01499532 Rodman - TENTATIVE RULING Trust Case: Rodman - Trust 01499532

Calendar No.: 7

Date: 05/27/2026

MOTIONS TO COMPEL MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION (ROA 13)

Before the court is a motion by Kara Kruse Lee (“Kara”) to compel mediation and arbitration for the pending petitions. The motion is opposed by Kevin Craig Kruse (“Kevin”).

Since the parties involved in this case share a surname, the court uses first names for clarity and no disrespect is intended. (Morgan v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 1026. fn.1.)