Estate of Rosalia Rodriguez Gauna

Case Number

24PR00429

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 12/09/2025 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Reconsideration

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

On October 29, 2024, the Order for Probate was issued in this case, finding decedent died intestate, and appointing Gilbert Gauna as administrator. On March 18, 2025, Thomas R. Gauna filed a Petition for Letters of Special Administration that implied, but did not ask for, this Court to remove Gilbert Gauna as administrator. The Court denied that petition.

On June 20, 2025, Thomas R. Gauna filed a Motion to Set Aside Order Denying Petition for Special Administration.  The Court denied the motion, both for the citation to false authority and on the merits, but gave Mr. Gauna an opportunity to file a Motion for Reconsideration to clarify the authority.

On September 2, 2025, Thomas R. Gauna filed a Declaration on Judicial Council form MC-030.  Within that declaration, Mr. Gauna attempts to clarify his legal position in the June 20th Motion to Set Aside.

It is obvious from the procedural defect of the Declaration, and its contents, that Mr. Gauna is struggling to understand the procedural requirements for obtaining relief with the Court.  However, even if the Court were to exercise discretion, the allegations/statements in the Declaration would not be sufficient to obtain the relief Mr. Gauna seeks, because Mr. Gauna was served notice of the Second Amended Petition for Letters of Administration in August 2024, and came to the knowledge of the purported will in December 2024.  Thus, at best, Mr. Gauna must have submitted the will by February 2025, but failed to do so until March 18, 2025.  At worst, he would have been required to submit the will for probate in January 2025, based on the Order for Probate being issued in October 2024.

Thus, even if all the procedural hurdles were overcome in this case by Mr. Gauna, the merits of any relief requested in any form to admit the will to probate, would be cut off by the statute of limitations in Probate Code section 8226(c). 

The Court took the analysis above into consideration and denied Mr. Gauna’s Motion for Reconsideration on October 21, 2025.  In spite of that denial, Mr. Gauna again brings a Motion for Reconsideration arguing what is essentially the same thing: “My mother had a holographic will, I turned it into the court on time, and the current administrator is not following my mother’s wishes in that will.”  This argument fails for reasons particularly outlined previously, and in the analysis above.

Therefore, the Court should deny this second Motion for Reconsideration because it does not identify new facts or new law that was not already argued by Mr. Gauna, and (most importantly) was not available to him in previous petitions and motions. (Forrest v. State Of Cal. Dept. Of Corps.  (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 202, disapproved on other grounds by Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1164, 1172.  See also  Baldwin v. Home Sav. of Am. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1192, 1199 (noting that 1992 amendment to CCP §1008 tightened diligence requirements).)

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