Did you know... that attorneys and parties can now purchase court filed scanned documents in Room 429? After locating the document on the court computer, the individual should select the print option (there is a printer icon). The individual then is required to pay for the copy of the document(s) at Window No. 1. The cost is $.50/page and payment can be made by cash (with exact change) or by credit card (excluding AmEx). After payment is made, the representative at Window No. 1 will print out the document(s) requested and provide the individual with a receipt.

In conducting a settlement conference, a judge may engage in ex parte communications with the parties and urge settlement.

In re Complaint 16-90117 - filed Oct. 3, 2016
Cite as 2016 S.O.S. 16-90117
Full text click here>

County lacked "reasonable cause" under the Health Care Decisions Law to file a proceeding to remove an agent for health care designated in an advance health care directive, where the evidence supporting the agent's removal was "appalling inadequate" and the county failed to apprise the court that the patient's treating physician concurred with the agent that palliative care was called for. The law does not permit a public authority to substitute its view of the patient's best interests for the patient's instructions and his personal values as expressed in the directive. Trial court abused its discretion in denying agent's request for attorney fees where the only conclusions consistent with the evidence was that county lacked reasonable cause for the action.

Humboldt County Adult Protective Services v. Superior Court (Magney) - filed Oct. 24, 2016, First District, Div. One
Cite as 2016 S.O.S. 5271
Full text click here > 

District court did not abuse its discretion in denying pro hac vice status to an attorney who: was involved in an ethics proceeding before the bar of a jurisdiction in which he was admitted; was not candid with the court about the status of those proceedings; and disclosed that he was twice barred in perpetuity from appearing pro hac vice before judges in other districts. In addition, he failed to list numerous cases in which he was reprimanded, denied pro hac vice status, or otherwise sanctioned for violating various local rules, and had a history of personal attacks on judges, including filing a frivolous action against the judge who denied his pro hac vice application.

In re Bundy - filed Oct. 28, 2016
Cite as 2016 S.O.S. 16-72275
Full text click here >

Plaintiffs were not equitably estopped to bring action to quiet title and compel defendants to remove a retaining wall and other improvements they built without plaintiff's approval on land plaintiff owned adjacent to defendants' property. Although defendants claimed plaintiff promised not to pursue a claim that construction of the wall violated applicable restrictions, equitable estoppel requires the party asserting it to be ignorant of the true facts and to justifiably rely on the conduct or statements of another who has knowledge of those facts. Evidence supported the conclusion that plaintiff did not know all of the facts and it made its statements after defendants knowingly constructed the retaining wall and other improvements on plaintiff's property without obtaining the required written approvals from plaintiff.

Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Association v. McMullin - filed Oct. 3, 2016, publication ordered Oct. 27, 2016, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as 2016 S.O.S. 5455
Full text click here >