Tuolumne — Probate Notes for May 15, 2026

Source: https://www.tuolumne.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/pb_d5_05152026.pdf

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

1 PR12587 Estate of Betty Jean Baker 01/29/2025

Terri Garris Attorney: Tamara Polley

Terri Garris Attorney: Tamara Polley

John Kramer Attorney: Tamara Polley

Betty Jean Baker

Review Hearing

01/29/2025 Petition File Tracking 02/20/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are
deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

No appearance is necessary.

The Court, having received and reviewed the TUO-PR-125, intends to find by a preponderance of the evidence that good cause exists to extend the period of administration in this matter. A §12200 review hearing will be set for 09/18/2026 @ 8:30 a.m. Petitioner to give notice.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

2 PR12769 Estate of Carol Cope 03/17/2026

Christopher Cope Attorney: Christine James

Sean Cope Attorney: Christine James

Denis Zilm Attorney: Christine James

George Cope Attorney: Christine James

Christine Cope Attorney: Christine James

Carol Cope

Petition Hearing

Determine Succession to Primary Residence

03/17/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/19/2026 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are

deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

This is the initial hearing on a by-pass petition to determine intestate succession to decedent’s primary residence. Petitioners purport to be the successors in interest by virtue of §6402(a), in that they are each (and all of) the decedent’s natural heirs. Every by-pass petition must state “the facts upon which the petitioner bases the allegation that the described real property was the decedent's primary residence.” See §13152(a)(3). Although the petition lacks the typical averment from an individual with personal knowledge, this Court was able to deduce sufficient facts from the death certificate to make the prima facie finding. Although one’s “primary residence” can differ from one’s last residence (ie, assisted living, hospice), there must still be some permanency or continuing expectation of periodic return associated with the former. See, e.g., CCP §704.995; Govt. Code §244; Veh. Code §516; Estate of Wardani (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 870, 882-883; Marriage of Amezquita & Archuleta (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1419-1420; Kibbee v. Blue Ridge Ins. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 53, 61-62; DeMiglio v. Mashore (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1268. This Court will presume that her residence and place of death represent sufficient permanence.

Where the petition falls short is with the second requirement, to wit: evidence that “the property described in the order is property of the decedent.” See §13154(b)(4). There was nothing in the petition demonstrating decedent’s ownership of the subject mobile home, which this Court notes appears to be the primary residence for two of the heirs. Some evidence on this issue will be required.

Finally, this Court notes that the amendments to §13152 last year now limit the statute to “real property” and not all mobilehomes qualify as “real property.” See H&S §18551. Some evidence on this issue will also be required.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

3 PR12773 Estate of Charles Clifford Collins, Jr 03/19/2026

Christopher Corbett Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Charles Clifford Collins

Letters of Administration

03/19/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/24/2026 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is
necessary.” Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties
are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

This is the initial hearing on a petition to admit a foreign will to probate, and to issue Letters of Administration with Will Annexed for the petitioning personal representative. The following concerns are noted.

Firat, it appears from a number of recitals contained within the testamentary

instrument that the decedent intended for the law of South Carolina to control the meaning and legal effect of his testamentary plan. While this Court is certainly capable of doing the research, it will first fall on counsel for petitioner to advise whether the will can be self-proving under the law of South Carolina, or whether witness affidavits will be required. See CA Probate Code §21103 and SC Probate Code 62-2-503.

Second, there is no proof of publication provided yet to this Court, which his a natural precondition to the relief sought.

Third, the petition indicates a prayer for letters of administration but the proffered will actually nominates petitioner to serve as executor so it seems that letters testamentary would be appropriate. Compare §8420 with §8440. See Estate of Wardani (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 870, 880. Petitioner to advise.

Finally, a nonresident personal representative must have on file a permanent residence disclosure. Probate Code §8573.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

4 PR12469 Estate of Mattew David Thomas 05/13/2024

Mattew David Thomas

Shelby Thomas Attorney: Rachel Patton

Review Hearing - Report - Probate Code 12200

FURTHER

05/13/2024 Petition File Tracking 03/03/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are

deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

This is the scheduled review hearing on the status of the ongoing administration, pursuant to Probate Code §12201. However, a review of the court file reveals a vacancy where the required §12200 petition or status report is supposed to be. This is the second time that the Court has had to affirmatively ask for an update. Counsel is reminded of the court’s authority under §12205 to start cutting statutory fees if this goes on without a good explanation and a reasonable head’s up.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

5 PR12786 Estate of Robert Leonard Lippert, III 04/20/2026

Lisa Delacy Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Robert Leonard Lippert

Petition Hearing - Ex Parte

Transfer of Decedent's Will

04/20/2026 Petition File Tracking 04/23/2026 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:

https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456]. All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

No appearance is necessary.

Although the petition cites to the incorrect statutes/rules, the petition nevertheless presents a sufficient basis to trigger the release of the original. The process is fairly straightforward:

Step 1: “Unless a petition for probate of the will is earlier filed, the custodian of a will shall, within 30 days after having knowledge of the death of the testator, do both of the following: (1) deliver the [original] will to the clerk of the superior court of the county in which the estate of the decedent may be administered; and (2) deliver a copy of the will to the person named in the will as executor.” Probate Code §8200(a).

Step 2: “If a will has been delivered to [Tuolumne], that court may order the will transferred to [Stanislaus]. A petition for the transfer may be presented and heard without notice, but shall not be granted without proof that a copy of the petition has been [served on everyone in the Stanislaus action]. Certified copies of the petition, any supporting documents, and the order shall be transmitted by [Tuolumne] along with the original will, and these copies shall be filed in [Stanislaus].” Probate Code §8203.

This Court makes no finding, preliminary or otherwise, regarding venue. The only issue before this Court is whether there exists a bona fide probate petition already in play in Stanislaus. Thus, a certified copy of that petition and the order appointing a personal representative with the copy of the will would suffice. This Court will then order the original will released directly to counsel for filing with Stanislaus.

Query: If the sole beneficiary of that estate is a ward in a guardianship of an estate here in Tuolumne (see #12 on calendar this same day), why not just run the estate proceeding here in Tuolumne and save the trouble??

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

6 PR12566 Estate of Shelly Lynn Desgeorges 12/24/2024

Shelly Lynn Desgeorges

Jessica Glenn Attorney: Brandon Meyer

Review Hearing - Report - Probate Code 12200

FURTHER

12/24/2024 Petition File Tracking 02/11/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.” Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link: https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456]. All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

No appearance is necessary.

The Court, having received and reviewed the TUO-PR-125, intends to find by a preponderance of the evidence that good cause exists to extend the period of administration in this matter. A §12200 review hearing will be set for 09/18/2026 @ 8:30 a.m. Petitioner to give notice.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

7 CV67962 Megan Gallegos vs. Peter Edward Bippart, MD 01/02/2026

Megan Gallegos Attorney: James Arrasmith

Peter Edward Bippart, MD

Adventist Health Sonora

Demurrer

to plaintiffs complaint
Law Office representing Adventist Health called to reserve.
filed Demurrer 4/9/26-DG

01/02/2026 Complaint File Tracking 01/12/2026 High Density

Case notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.” Unless directed otherwise, all participants may appear via Zoom: https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Passcode: 123456]. All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are assigned to that department for all pre-trial purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice, parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

This is a personal injury action stemming from alleged medical malpractice. Before the Court this day is a demurrer to the 2nd and 3rd causes of action in the Complaint by co-defendant Hospital, claiming that plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts for either the “corporate negligence” or the “negligent hiring/supervision” claims because both of those are covered by MICRA, and therefore “duplicates” of the 1st cause of action for medical negligence.

A demurrer is a legal challenge to the adequacy of a pleading, not a challenge to the validity of the claims themselves. See Greif v. Sanin (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 412, 426. A general demurrer for failure to state a cause of action must be overruled, if the pleading states, however inartfully, facts disclosing some right to relief. Weimer v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 341, 352. The fact that defendant Hospital might be liable for Dr. Bippart’s professional services rendered to plaintiff on different theories does not equate with a failure to state. If there is a statute which provides the hospital with damage caps, the day will come when that issue can be addressed, but now is now that time. Moreover, although this Court is aware of some appellate authority suggesting, in dicta, that a demurrer is the proper vehicle for challenging redundant causes of action (see Dickinson v. Cosby (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 655 at 692, Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268 at 290, and Hailstone v. Martinez (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 728 at 742), a review of CCP §430.10 fails to reveal any legal authority for sustaining a demurrer to a cause of action on the ground that it is redundant, duplicative, superfluous, or surplusage. Despite the dicta, the issue was squarely, and decidedly, addressed in Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858 at 890: “[Redundancy] is not a ground on which a demurrer may be sustained. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.) A quarter-century ago the code authorized a motion to strike “irrelevant and redundant ” matter from a pleading. (Former Code Civ. Proc., § 453, repealed 1982.) But the parallel provision now empowers the court only to “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The elimination of the reference to redundancy may have rested on the irreproachable rationale that it is a waste of time and judicial resources to entertain a motion challenging part of a pleading on the sole ground of repetitiveness. (See Civ.Code, § 3537 [“Superfluity does not vitiate”].)”

Blickman is the controlling authority on the topic, as it is the only appellate opinion to actually analyze the question. Even if duplication was a demurrable offense as defense counsel suggests, the claims are not duplicate until there is a stipulation from the defense that Dr. Bippart was an agent in the course and scope at the time of his alleged negligence. Without that, plaintiff must be allowed to retain a direct liability theory against the Hospital.

Defendant to answer in 10 days.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

8 FL9963 Teresa Houston vs. Matthew C. Nugent 2000000766054 06/08/2010

Teresa Houston Attorney: Hal Channell

Matthew C Nugent

Dept. of Child Support Services Attorney: Dept. of Child
Support Services
Review Hearing - Child Support

FURTHER Arrears - special set due to Respondent's schedule

06/08/2010 OSC Application File Tracking 08/13/2024 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are

deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

On 04/07/2022, Mother apparently stipulated to giving Father sole physical custody with no set visitation schedule.

On 09/29/2023, the court entered an order obligating Mother to pay Father $635/month to support one teenage son.

On 05/16/2025, Mother filed a motion in Dept. 2 an RFO seeking a parenting allocation and an adjustment to the support obligation. That has since been denied.

Father: Mechanic, Sonora Ford Mother: Unknown employment, $25k in arrears, liquidation reset to 25%

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

9 PR9787 Conservatorship of Jonathan Martinez 04/05/2005

Denise Stephens Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Jonathan Martinez

Westamerica Bank Attorney: Randolph Sharon

Accounting Hearing

9th

04/10/2024 Accounting: Other File Tracking 04/10/2024 Petition 11/20/2024 From Court-Probate on Calendar

No appearance is necessary.

The Court, having received and reviewed all 132 pages of the current 9th accounting, finds that the accounting is in order and intends to approve all requested distribution amounts for third-party service fees and costs. Court will set a biennial accounting period.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

10 PR11889 Guardianship of Christopher Andrew Means Jr 01/07/2021

Debra Sprague Pro Per

Christopher Andrew Means

Review Hearing - Guardian Rept-Probate Code 1513.2

FURTHER

01/07/2021 Petition File Tracking 01/07/2021 Petition 04/26/2024 High Density

Guardian apparently wants to resign. Need responsible adult per §2662.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

11 PR12496 Guardianship of Keani Lima, et al. 07/16/2024

Maria Dolores Troncoso Pro Per

Keani Dolores Lima Attorney: Nathan Nutting

Kira Elizebeth Lima Attorney: Nathan Nutting

Joseph K Lima III Pro Per

Review Hearing - Visitation

FURTHER

07/16/2024 Petition File Tracking 07/16/2024 Petition 05/20/2025 High Density

Temporary guardianship established with consent of all in October. Update on Father reunification efforts? Related to #15

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

12 PR10975 Guardianship of Lillian L. Folsom DeLacy 08/26/2013

Lisa F DeLacy Pro Per

Lillian Louise Folsom DeLacy

Accounting Hearing

8th

02/17/2022 Accounting: Other File Tracking 06/14/2024 High Density

10/02/2025 fee for Estate of Lippert not authorized

Q: Account investments did not grow at all after management fee?

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

13 PR11005 Guardianship of London M. Roberts 11/01/2013

Damien Morris Pro Per

Neomi Morris Pro Per

London Monae Roberts

Review Hearing - Guardian Rept-Probate Code 1513.2

11/06/2013 Petition: Other File Tracking 06/14/2024 High Density Other Cases JV7418

Court is awaiting receipt of GC-251.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

14 PR12325 In The Matter John Landrum Martin III 09/19/2023

Melissa Hunter Martin Attorney:Pro Per James Cilley

John Landrum Martin

Review Hearing -

FURTHER
Accounting Hearing

FURTHER

12/18/2025 Petition File Tracking 02/14/2025 From Court-Probate on Calendar

Continued hearing to receive/review accounting in conservatorship of estate.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

15 FL16854 Joseph Lima and Lita Lima 11/18/2020

Joseph Lima Pro Per

Lita Lima Pro Per

Maria Troncoso Pro Per

Motion Hearing - Visitation

FURTHER trailing PR12496

11/18/2020 Petition File Tracking 01/10/2025 High Density

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

16 FL18741 In Re: Iyla Hyder 09/17/2024

Imera N. Mathis Pro Per

Sean Hyder

Iyla Hyder

Imera N. Mathis Pro Per

Sean Hyder

Christopher Hyder

Imera N. Mathis Pro Per

Sean Hyder Pro Per

Athena Hernandez Pro Per

Review Hearing

Step Up Plan for Mom/Release of supervised visits

07/18/2025 Request for Order File Tracking 07/09/2025 High Density Other Cases FL18745

Reports from both supervisors appear consistent and positive to bio mom.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

17 CV68067 Petition of AC 02/04/2026

Pro Per

OSC Hearing - Name Change

02/04/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/05/2026 High Density

Confidential name change

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

18 PR12690 Guardianship of Victoria Leandra Anderson 08/18/2025

Chelsea Van Atta Pro Per

Victoria Anderson Attorney: Christine Parraz

Appoint Guardian

Temporary Guardianship 6 month rotation

08/18/2025 Petition File Tracking 08/18/2025 Petition 10/22/2025 Cassandra Vigardt Other Cases FL14643 FL12701

Temporary guardianship to be established with structured visits to bio dad (with conditions) and no visits to bio mom. Court to prep paperwork with assistance from court investigator.

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

19 CV68172 Petition of Shienne Marks 03/04/2026

Shienne Marks Pro Per

OSC Hearing - Name Change

03/04/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/24/2026 High Density

Nonconfidential name change of minor w/o both parents. No proof of publication or notice

5/11/2026 8:30 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Hon: Steven Streger

Department 5 May 15, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

20 CV68192 Petition of Leah Powell 03/09/2026

Leah Powell Pro Per

OSC Hearing - Name Change

03/09/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/24/2026 High Density

Nonconfidential name change of minor w/o both parents. No proof of publication or notice

5/11/2026 8:30 am