Skip to main content.

Jury Scam alert -

The Santa Barbara Superior Court has received complaints about individuals trying to scam members of the public by pretending to be court officers or officials. The Jury Services office of the Santa Barbara Superior Court does not call citizens to request payments for failing to appear for jury duty. California law does not permit citizens to pay a fine in lieu of jury duty. If you receive such a call simply hang up and, if the scammer persists, call your local law enforcement agency. Learn more about the recent scam warning.

Notice to Jurors:

Prospective jurors summoned for jury service can expect to receive their jury summons in postcard form. Please check your mail for a postcard with important instructions to fulfil your jury service. Visit the Jury Services page for more information.

Matter of Gilbert D Ventura Trust

Case Number

24PR00237

Case Type

Trust

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 04/23/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

1. “Motion” to Appoint Trustee 2. Demurrer 3. Motion to Strike

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required. 

This matter was placed on calendar by a “Motion” filed by Marjorie Arbuckle, et al.   At the last hearing on February 5, 2025, the parties were instructed by the Court to select a mediator for approval of the Court.  No stipulation or recommendation for mediators has been filed.

Not only has no mediator been selected and presented to the Court for approval, but multiple subsequent filings threaten to cause a procedural morass that will exponentially waste judicial resources to resolve.  Therefore, the procedural posture of this case is carefully outlined below, followed by recommendation to the Court in order to prepare this matter for referral to mediation pursuant to Breslin v Breslin (2020) 62 Cal.App.5th 801:

1. “Motion” to Appoint Trustee (On Calendar)

Movant:      Marjorie Arbuckle et al.

Status:        Opposed via Demurrer and Motion to Strike filed by Julie Martinez.

Recommendation: It is recommended the Court exercise its discretion to strike the “Motion” pursuant to CCP section 436(b), for not being filed in conformity with the laws of this state, court rule, and previous order of the Court.  The ‘Motion’ is an improperly titled and inappropriate request for reconsideration of a matter previously denied by the Court.  Not only do “motions” have almost no statutorily appropriate place in Probate Court procedure, but the motion is requesting relief that the Court already denied (Min. Ord., filed Feb. 5, 2025), and should not be inclined to entertain in the future without fully adjudicating the pleadings.

2. Demurrer (On Calendar)

Movant:      Julie Martinez.

Status:        Opposed via “Response” by Marjorie Arbuckle et al.

Recommendation: It is recommended the Court find the Demurrer moot due to the ‘Motion’ it attacks being stricken.

3. Motion to Strike (On Calendar)

Movant:      Julie Martinez.

Status:        Opposed via “Response” by Marjorie Arbuckle et al.

Recommendation: It is recommended the Court find this motion moot, unless the Court determines it more appropriate to grant this motion for the same reasons the Court should strike the Arbuckle, et al. ‘Motion’ discussed above.

Competing Petitions for Internal Affairs

Status:        A Petition for Internal Affairs (Prob. Code, §17200) was filed by Marjorie Arbuckle, et al. on April 19, 2024.  Written objection to that petition was filed by Julie Martinez on May 2, 2024, placing this matter at issue, and 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.)

Julie Martinez also filed what is effectively a Petition for Internal Affairs on May 8, 2024.  Although the petition is titled “Petition to Appoint Julie Martinez Successor Trustee,” the pleading, in fact, cites to and operates as a petition for removal of Arbuckle as successor trustee (a matter of internal affairs of a trust).  This petition received objection by Marjorie Arbuckle, et al. on June 5, 2024, and again on June 12, 2024, requiring evidentiary hearing to resolve.

Recommendation:         It is recommended the Court waive any further objections to the competing Petitions for Internal Affairs pursuant to CRC, Rule 7.801, and order this case to mediation with Glen M. Reiser pursuant to Breslin v Breslin (2020) 62 Cal.App.5th 801. (https://www.jamsadr.com/reiser/)

Appearances:

The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference.

Meeting ID: 161 956 1423

Passcode: 137305

Was this helpful?

Yes No
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Was this helpful?